Convince me that God is loving

[PureX]

You believe that people who hold religious beliefs cannot overcome their own biased ego.

You're just playing kiddie word games, here. The "nut-huh, YOU did!" game.

I simply observe this to be so. And so can you, if you are willing to look. Just ask yourself what you REALLY mean when you say "I believe". And soon you will see that what you really "believe" is that you are right about whatever it is you are choosing to "believe in". When the truth is you very often cannot possibly know that you are right. And that is especially true about God.

But observe, now, how intently you are fighting this assertion, and ask yourself why? Why do you really need to be right about this? What are you really getting out of the idea that your belief is truth? Is it really that difficult to admit that there is no way for we humans to know what God is, or even if God exists? What part of you is insisting that you "know" it when really all you're doing is pretending to yourself that you know it? I think it's the ego. Because that's what our egos do.

That is a belief that you hold strongly and never relinquish.

It's simply an observation that you are exemplifying. As do many others, here, includimg myself on occasion. This site is full of "true believers"; theists and atheists and in-betweeners. Of course I could be wrong but you certainly aren't showing that to be the case. And I don't really care one way or another. You started the thread wanting to know what we think about your "belief" that God is not loving. All I'm saying is that you created that belief, and you are choosing to hold onto it. So if you don't like it, then you can choose to let that it go and create another. We all can. All that gets in our way is this foolish insistence of "believing in" our own presumed righteousness. And that's just ego.

You 'believe' that religious belief is a dishonest course of reasoning and I believe it is honest if one 'honestly' believes what they believe.

C'mon, if you were reading that sentence carefully, you would see what I'm talking about. Dishonesty does not suddenly become honest just because you decided to "believe in" your own deceits. And it's not just our religious beliefs that are so often dishonest, it's beliefs about all kinds of things that we can't really know to be so. The 'scientism cult' around here is as rife with this kind of dishonest ego-belief as any Bible-thumping religious zealots are.

Some believers do know that what they believe is true. Just because you cannot know the way we know does not mean we don't know.

Yeah, they often make that claim. But when you ask them how they "know", they suddenly becomes just as self-deluded and confused as everyone else is. And it seems to me that if someone really "knows" something, they should be able to tell us how they know it. Otherwise, all the evidence says they've simply deceived themselves into rejecting any doubt. And that is not knowledge.

Just becaue one cannot prove something as a fact that does not mean thye do not know it. There are many ways of knowing.

Not really. There are many ways of fooling ourselves into pretending we know things that we don't. But knowing isn't a pretense. It involves actual specifics, and details, and context that can be clearly articulated. I know how to play a guitar. And I could go on for hours explaining how I know, and what I know. And I could even do it in a way that you could recognize as actually knowledge.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself (3): to recognize the nature of : discern b(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

When you have to rely on the dictionary to make your point, you've already lost the point.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just ask yourself what you REALLY mean when you say "I believe". And soon you will see that what you really "believe" is that you are right about whatever it is you are choosing to "believe in". When the truth is you very often cannot possibly know that you are right. And that is especially true about God.

No, you do not speak for me and what I think.
When I say "I believe" it is a statement of belief I hold on faith and evidence. It has nothing to do with "being right."

It is not the truth that I cannot possibly know that what I believe is true just because you cannot understand how I know that.

But observe, now, how intently you are fighting this assertion, and ask yourself why? Why do you really need to be right about this?

This has nothing to do with "being right." That is your ego speaking, not mine.

What are you really getting out of the idea that your belief is truth?

Knowing the truth.

Is it really that difficult to admit that there is no way for we humans to know what God is, or even if God exists?

Speak for yourself. I am not going to 'admit' to what you believe since "I" don't believe it. Do you have any personal boundaries?

I know that God exists. I don't know what God is but I know some of the attributes of God and the will of God for this age.

What part of you is insisting that you "know" it when really all you're doing is pretending to yourself that you know it? I think it's the ego. Because that's what our egos do.

I am not pretending to know. I know, and it is not ego, it is because of faith and evidence.

You started the thread wanting to know what we think about your "belief" that God is not loving.

No, I did not start this thread wanting to know what people think about my "belief" that God is not loving.

I said in the OP:
Tell me why I should believe that God is loving.
I cannot believe God is loving...

I did not say that God is not loving. Do you understand that what I 'believe' about God makes no difference? God is either loving or He is not.

All I'm saying is that you created that belief, and you are choosing to hold onto it. So if you don't like it, then you can choose to let that it go and create another. We all can. All that gets in our way is this foolish insistence of "believing in" our own presumed righteousness. And that's just ego.

I did not create that belief because I do not even hold that belief (that God is not loving), but if I did hold that belief I could not create another belief since that is not how I operate. I choose beliefs about God based upon scripture and what makes sense to me. I do not choose them like I choose a new pair of shoes that is pretty and comfortable.

C'mon, if you were reading that sentence carefully, you would see what I'm talking about. Dishonesty does not suddenly become honest just because you decided to "believe in" your own deceits.

Who are YOU to say that MY beliefs are deceits? You have absolutely no personal boundaries.
You cannot say what is dishonest for anyone except yourself.

And it's not just our religious beliefs that are so often dishonest, it's beliefs about all kinds of things that we can't really know to be so. The 'scientism cult' around here is as rife with this kind of dishonest ego-belief as any Bible-thumping religious zealots are.

Why are you speaking for everyone else and what is dishonest? Why not just speak for yourself?

Yeah, they often make that claim. But when you ask them how they "know", they suddenly becomes just as self-deluded and confused as everyone else is. And it seems to me that if someone really "knows" something, they should be able to tell us how they know it. Otherwise, all the evidence says they've simply deceived themselves into rejecting any doubt. And that is not knowledge.

I have explained how I know it but that was not accepted. I am not the one who has an ego problem. It is those who INSIST that I cannot knoww for the reasons I gave, just because they don't know for those reasons.

The 100-dollar question is: Why does it matter to you if I have no doubt?

If a Christian says "I have no doubt about my Christian beliefs" it does not bother me, because he has his own reasons to have no doubt and his lack of doubt is none of my business since I can 'separate' between him and myself.

Not really. There are many ways of fooling ourselves into pretending we know things that we don't. But knowing isn't a pretense. It involves actual specifics, and details, and context that can be clearly articulated.

I have specifics and details and I have presented them many, many times on this forum.

When you have to rely on the dictionary to make your point, you've already lost the point.

I was only using the definition to illustrate that there are many ways of knowing, which was my point.

 

[CG Didymus]

Let me ask you a question. If, let's say, a person murders someone, perhaps a child who didn't even know the murderer -- how sorry do you think the family members would be if the murderer was put to death?

What does your question have to do with what I said?

 

[YoursTrue]

What does your question have to do with what I said?

You were discussing a few posts back about an "all loving" God, I think. So that made me wonder if you think a loving person would just shrug his shoulders when a heinous, violent crime is committed if he is perhaps on a jury. Or if he were the parent of a child who was murdered.

 

[Trailblazer]

You were discussing a few posts back about an "all loving" God, I think. So that made me wonder if you think a loving person would just shrug his shoulders when a heinous, violent crime is committed if he is perhaps on a jury. Or if he were the parent of a child who was murdered.

I assume you believe that God is all-loving?
I think we know what loving people do, but what does God do when a heinous, violent crime is committed or if a child is murdered?

 

[ppp]

You were discussing a few posts back about an "all loving" God, I think. So that made me wonder if you think a loving person would just shrug his shoulders when a heinous, violent crime is committed if he is perhaps on a jury. Or if he were the parent of a child who was murdered.

If any of the versions of the Abrahamic god were to exist, that would descibe his actions every day.

 

[YoursTrue]

What does your question have to do with what I said?

Hi. So did you understand how the question is related?

 

[YoursTrue]

It is a Baha'i teaching that the next world (heaven) is a spiritual world so there isn't anything physical there.

So what happened to the scriptures that speak of the earth having righteous people on it forever, such as Psalm 37 verse 29 which says the righteous will inherit the earth and dwell in it forever.

 

[Trailblazer]

If any of the versions of the Abrahamic god were to exist, that would descibe his actions every day.

You mean His INactions.

 

[Trailblazer]

So what happened to the scriptures that speak of the earth having righteous people on it forever, such as Psalm 37 verse 29 which says the righteous will inherit the earth and dwell in it forever.

Those verses are true.

Psalm 37:29 The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.

The righteous people who are 'living on earth' when this prophecy about the New Earth is fulfilled, and the generations of righteous people who will be 'living on earth' after that time, will continue to live on the earth forever.

The righteous people who die will go to heaven, which is a spiritual world, so there isn't anything physical there.

Matthew 25:45-46 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

'Life eternal' is in heaven, not on earth. NOBODY lives forever on earth.

 

[ppp]

You mean His INactions.

Yes, quite.

To riff off the great philosopher, Peart, If you choose not to act, you still have made a choice.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I believe God is not willing for any to be lost. I believe God is not inside the actions that ae evil. I believe the punishment of evil is a good thing.

You believe what you've been told uncritically. You've been told that whatever this god says or does is moral and doing or believing otherwise is immoral. The critical thinker approaches it from the other direction. He looks at the actions attributed to the god and makes his moral judgments from them as he would for any other actor, that is, he examines the evidence impartially and draws conclusions from them. You begin with an unfounded premise believed by faith and then evaluate those actions. Not surprisingly, they're all divine.

What you haven't done that is also commonly part of this process is to then reverse engineer an argument using faulty reasoning connecting the evidence to your premise now presented as a conclusion derived from that evidence - what I call a pseudo-conclusion. These are the people who say things like, "The whole world is evidence of God." They didn't use that evidence - the world - to conclude that it must be the work of a god. They accepted that on faith and then created that weak argument where God is presented as a pseudo-conclusion rather than the premise it is.

You mean His INactions.

Do you remember all of the post I wrote you about restricted choice as an argument against the existence of an interventionist god? It was a series of inactions. Here's one of them, which also refers to an earlier one covering the same topic. It's a series of observations of how things could have been otherwise in a universe with such a god, but not in one without that god. Their cumulative effect shows how this god is indistinguishable from its nonexistence. Recall that a perfectly loaded coin can only land one way (restricted choice), but a fair coin can be heads or tails. No single coin toss can identify a loaded coin, but the cumulative effect of getting the same outcome every time points to aloaded coin. We can do the same with gods.

Once we believe we're right, we're stuck with it unless we're able to overcome our own biased ego. And few of us are. I don't believe I'm right so I don't have to overcome a biased ego to change my mind if I need/want to change my position. Neither does anyone else if they will just forgo the whole "I believe it" business. The real problem here is that belief is a fundamentally dishonest course of reasoning. We trap ourselves by choosing to "believe in" things that we can never actually know to be so. And then we end up auto-defending our own internal deceits so we can hold onto it.

You must be describing personal experience. My experience has been very different. I judge the quality of my belief set by its ability to predict outcomes. My map of the world by which I navigate it contains a collection of empirically confirmed ideas, or beliefs as you call them here. They have served me well.

If you believe things that you "can never actually know," you are making the logical error of belief by faith, and one is often accepting a false or unfalsifiable belief. THAT can be trouble. And yes, if you promote such a belief to critical thinkers, you will be asked to defend it according to the academic (legal, scientific) rules of interpreting evidence, which will be impossible and uncomfortable. The problem there is not belief, but belief by faith.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you remember all of the post I wrote you about restricted choice as an argument against the existence of an interventionist god? It was a series of inactions. Here's one of them, which also refers to an earlier one covering the same topic. It's a series of observations of how things could have been otherwise in a universe with such a god, but not in one without that god. Their cumulative effect shows how this god is indistinguishable from its nonexistence.

That would only be true if you have expectations regarding 'what God would do' if God existed, but there is no reason to think that God would do anything other than what we can see.

I do not believe in an interventionist God. I believe that God only intervenes on earth when He sends Messengers.

 

[Ruhi19]

'I believe' that suffering that is not chosen by virtue of one's free will can be attributed to fate, for which God is responsible.
God created a world that is a storehouse of suffering, knowing that people would suffer, some much more than others.

I am feeling my way to a response because I disagree. I do not think that God created a world that is a storehouse of suffering. I think Scripture indicates the opposite. However, God also gave humanity the power to choose which is where suffering comes into play. That is, I wouldn't think that people willingly choose to suffer but I do believe that people choose to do things which causes both themselves and others to suffer. For witness, people who want to hold onto power will arrange things so that they can even at the expense of others. They do not care about the suffering that comes to others because of their choice. One person wants to win a war so they create situations where others will suffer and give in to their demands. Even when others give in, their suffering is not lessened because the victor continues to impose suffering because the losers must be punished for not giving in sooner. This also serves to foster the attitude "I'm better than you and deserve more."

If you are referring to suffering cause by cancer or other such diseases, many of those are also caused by choices. If a person eats a balanced diet giving them all the nutrients they need and exercises and does the other things that science shows are ways to ensure health, then the likelihood is that they are not going to suffer from diseases. However, some of those choices are caused by poverty and/or where you live such as if the quality of the water that is accessible to you is not good. That is also caused by people in power who are not willing to care (love) for everyone.

There have been stories (in Dauphine, Manitoba, Canada in 2014) of experiments of basic needs income which was tried for 5 years there (1974-1979). New mothers stayed home longer with their babies improving their care, teens stayed in school rather than supporting their families, and health problems decreased. However, by 1979, the government changed and the program shut down without issuing a report about whether the experiment worked or not. It was a case of returning to the norm of oppressing people rather than helping (loving) them. A researcher found the boxes of documentation in 2011 and wrote a paper on it. In 2014, Huffington Post Canada wrote a story about it also indicating that Switzerland, Scotland, Namibia, Uganda, and India were looking at the idea.

As the image of God, Who, we are told, is love, we have a responsibility to reflect that love toward everyone. Until that love can be channeled into caring (loving) others, there will still be suffering in the world. That is not the fault of God. That is a fault in humanity in not following the guidance of God in creating a better world for everyone.

But there is hope. All Scripture tells us that there will be world peace. Peace is not possible while some of the world is being oppressed. It is only possible when we love everyone and treat them as one family.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am feeling my way to a response because I disagree. I do not think that God created a world that is a storehouse of suffering. I think Scripture indicates the opposite.

What do you think scripture says?
You don't believe what Abdu'l-Baha wrote? Who created the mortal abode?
No, it is not ignorance that binds man to this world. It is being born into it.

“O thou seeker of the Kingdom! Thy letter was received. Thou hast written of the severe calamity that hath befallen thee—the death of thy respected husband. That honourable man hath been so subjected to the stress and strain of this world that his greatest wish was for deliverance from it. Such is this mortal abode: a storehouse of afflictions and suffering. It is ignorance that binds man to it, for no comfort can be secured by any soul in this world, from monarch down to the most humble commoner. If once this life should offer a man a sweet cup, a hundred bitter ones will follow; such is the condition of this world. The wise man, therefore, doth not attach himself to this mortal life and doth not depend upon it; at some moments, even, he eagerly wisheth for death that he may thereby be freed from these sorrows and afflictions. Thus it is seen that some, under extreme pressure of anguish, have committed suicide.” Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 200​

However, God also gave humanity the power to choose which is where suffering comes into play. That is, I wouldn't think that people willingly choose to suffer but I do believe that people choose to do things which causes both themselves and others to suffer.

I did not 'choose' for my husband to get cancer and die last year. He did not choose it either.
No competent mental health professional would blame me for suffering owing to the loss of by husband of 37 years. Only a religionist would blame me, in order to protect their beliefs about God.

For witness, people who want to hold onto power will arrange things so that they can even at the expense of others. They do not care about the suffering that comes to others because of their choice. One person wants to win a war so they create situations where others will suffer and give in to their demands. Even when others give in, their suffering is not lessened because the victor continues to impose suffering because the losers must be punished for not giving in sooner. This also serves to foster the attitude "I'm better than you and deserve more."

Do Baha'is even care about individual suffering? It does not seem that way to me. It seems that all they care about is their mission to save the world. To heck with their fellow Baha'is who are suffering. It is somehow their fault or it doesn't matter. This kind of attitude is not going to make people want to join the Baha'i Faith nor is it going to be the cause of love and unity within the Faith. If Baha'is cannot even love each other how are they going to love the whole world?

If you are referring to suffering cause by cancer or other such diseases, many of those are also caused by choices. If a person eats a balanced diet giving them all the nutrients they need and exercises and does the other things that science shows are ways to ensure health, then the likelihood is that they are not going to suffer from diseases.

That is called "blame the victim." No, there is no way to ensure health. Many healthy people die of cancer or heart attacks. Some of illness is health-related but much of it is the luck of the draw.

However, some of those choices are caused by poverty and/or where you live such as if the quality of the water that is accessible to you is not good. That is also caused by people in power who are not willing to care (love) for everyone.

Only in impoverished countries, not in the United States and other wealthy countries.

There have been stories (in Dauphine, Manitoba, Canada in 2014) of experiments of basic needs income which was tried for 5 years there (1974-1979). New mothers stayed home longer with their babies improving their care, teens stayed in school rather than supporting their families, and health problems decreased. However, by 1979, the government changed and the program shut down without issuing a report about whether the experiment worked or not. It was a case of returning to the norm of oppressing people rather than helping (loving) them. A researcher found the boxes of documentation in 2011 and wrote a paper on it. In 2014, Huffington Post Canada wrote a story about it also indicating that Switzerland, Scotland, Namibia, Uganda, and India were looking at the idea.

I do not doubt that program decreased health problems but I don't think love is the answer. It requires a lot more than love to change a system.

As the image of God, Who, we are told, is love, we have a responsibility to reflect that love toward everyone. Until that love can be channeled into caring (loving) others, there will still be suffering in the world. That is not the fault of God. That is a fault in humanity in not following the guidance of God in creating a better world for everyone.

I am not saying that what people choose to do or not do is God's fault.
How do Baha'is think that is going to happen? I have been a Baha'i for over 52 years and I still don't see it happening on anything but a very small scale.

I will tell you what I believe has to happen before any major changes can take place within the Baha'i Faith.

“Not by the force of numbers, not by the mere exposition of a set of new and noble principles, not by an organized campaign of teaching—no matter how worldwide and elaborate in its character—not even by the staunchness of our faith or the exaltation of our enthusiasm, can we ultimately hope to vindicate in the eyes of a critical and sceptical age the supreme claim of the Abhá Revelation. One thing and only one thing will unfailingly and alone secure the undoubted triumph of this sacred Cause, namely, the extent to which our own inner life and private character mirror forth in their manifold aspects the splendor of those eternal principles proclaimed by Bahá’u’lláh.” Shoghi Effendi, Bahá’í Administration, p. 66​

How can the Baha'is work on their own inner character when they are so busy trying to 'save the world'? It is much easier to spout principles than to work on our own inner character.

But there is hope. All Scripture tells us that there will be world peace. Peace is not possible while some of the world is being oppressed. It is only possible when we love everyone and treat them as one family.

Of course I believe it is going to happen, because Baha'u'llah wrote that and it is also in the Bible.
Those are good intentions, to love everyone and treat them as one family, but I don't think that is enough to change the world.

 

[Truthseeker]

“O thou seeker of the Kingdom! Thy letter was received. Thou hast written of the severe calamity that hath befallen thee—the death of thy respected husband. That honourable man hath been so subjected to the stress and strain of this world that his greatest wish was for deliverance from it. Such is this mortal abode: a storehouse of afflictions and suffering. It is ignorance that binds man to it, for no comfort can be secured by any soul in this world, from monarch down to the most humble commoner. If once this life should offer a man a sweet cup, a hundred bitter ones will follow; such is the condition of this world. The wise man, therefore, doth not attach himself to this mortal life and doth not depend upon it; at some moments, even, he eagerly wisheth for death that he may thereby be freed from these sorrows and afflictions. Thus it is seen that some, under extreme pressure of anguish, have committed suicide.” Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 200

I wished for my brothers to die, so they would be freed from their afflictions. It was not their fault that they suffered. They had a neurological disorder, which was caused by the material world, and we can say that God created the material world that makes this kind of suffering possible. However, and this is where there is some dispute, they are being compensated for their suffering. I can't say that they advanced spiritually while they were here, I don't know one way or the other, but probably not. People can also be in a position to enjoy this material world. These people can lose out spiritually if they are not careful to not get attached to the enjoyment they are experiencing. Most people in this position do lose out this way. Enjoying this world, as you know, doesn't necessarily happen if you have a lot of material possessions and money.

Those are good intentions, to love everyone and treat them as one family, but I don't think that is enough to change the world.

We also need truthfulness, trustworthiness, and justice.

 

[Trailblazer]

I wished for my brothers to die, so they would be freed from their afflictions. It was not their fault that they suffered. They had a neurological disorder, which was caused by the material world, and we can say that God created the material world that makes this kind of suffering possible.

We sure can say that, so Imo, God is left holding the bag. I have to agree with @It Aint Necessarily So regarding that.
Moreover, God intentionally created a world that is a storehouse of suffering, as Abdu'l-Baha said, and worse yet, some people suffer much more than other people. I cannot see the justice in that, but I am supposed to accept it anyway, even though it doesn't make sense to me.

However, and this is where there is some dispute, they are being compensated for their suffering. I can't say that they advanced spiritually while they were here, I don't know one way or the other, but probably not.

That is only a faith-based belief, not a fact, that they will be 'compensated' by God for their suffering. Nobody really knows. It is even worse if they were not even able to even grow spiritually from their suffering so what was the point?

People can also be in a position to enjoy this material world. These people can lose out spiritually if they are not careful to not get attached to the enjoyment they are experiencing. Most people in this position do lose out this way.

At least we can agree on that.

Enjoying this world, as you know, doesn't necessarily happen if you have a lot of material possessions and money.

I know that all too well since all my material possessions and money have not helped me enjoy this world.

We also need truthfulness, trustworthiness, and justice.

We can also agree on that, and I think these are even more important than loving everyone and treating them as one family.
Abdu'l-Baha said "Truthfulness is the foundation of all human virtues.and Baha'u'llah said "The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice."

1: O SON OF SPIRIT! My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 3​

I think it is more important to be kind to people than to love them. What is love anyway if not an action? I think love is overrated.

 

[Ruhi19]

Abdu'l-Baha does not say that God created the suffering; he says that the world IS a place of suffering. In my opinion, the world is a place of suffering because people don't listen to and adhere to the instructions of God through His Manifestations.

I am so sorry for your loss, nor would I blame you for grieving nor blame either of you for his death. Although Abdu'l-Baha says not to grieve in a tablet about Thomas Breakwell, he also spends most of the tablet lamenting his separation from Breakwell:

"Grieve thou not over the ascension of my beloved Breakwell, for he hath risen unto a rose garden of splendors within the Abhá Paradise, sheltered by the mercy of his mighty Lord, and he is crying at the top of his voice: “O that my people could know how graciously my Lord hath forgiven me, and made me to be of those who have attained His Presence!” (cf. Qur’án 36:25).

"O Breakwell, O my dear one! Where now is thy fair face? Where is thy fluent tongue? Where thy clear brow? Where thy bright comeliness?" (in Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, #158.)

My own preference for relieving my own grief is the following: "
That beloved child addresseth thee from the hidden world: 'O thou kind Mother, thank divine Providence that I have been freed from a small and gloomy cage and, like the birds of the meadows, have soared to the divine world -- a world which is spacious, illumined, and ever gay and jubilant. Therefore, lament not, O Mother, and be not grieved; I am not of the lost, nor have I been obliterated and destroyed. I have shaken off the mortal form and have raised my banner in this spiritual world. Following this separation is everlasting companionship. Thou shalt find me in the heaven of the Lord, immersed in an ocean of light.'
-Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 201, (#171)

When my mother died (she was not a Baha'i), she visited me in my dreams two or three days in a row to tell me that she was ecstatically happy she was not while on this earth.

Regarding choice: It is a difficult topic and I do not pretend to understand it completely. My understanding comes from reading the book "Gate of the Heart" where he quotes the Bab's Writings speaking of the Divine Will, the destiny of people and the fate of people. My understanding is that God destines good for everyone. This desire for good is manifested in the titles "the Most Merciful" and "the Most Compassionate." I'm sure you know that every chapter of the Qur'an, except one, begins with the Bismillah: In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. I just finished a study about these titles in the Bible and was surprised at the number of times it is used there as well. The point being: God desires good for us but allows us choice which can alter the destiny He plans for us. In that case, something other than good could result. At least that is my understanding at this time. One of the quotations regarding this is:

“Indeed that free choice is bound to the existence of each thing, and naught is called into existence except through its free choice. Verily, at the primordial moment of choice, when God said unto the thing, “Am I not your Lord?” it would not have replied, “Yea,” had it been deprived of freedom of choice.”
The Báb, Tafsír-i-Há quoted in Gate of the Heart, p 214

 

[Hockeycowboy]

He’s been very patient, allowing those issues about His sovereignty run their course, without His interference.

And, He created cats.

 

[Trailblazer]

Abdu'l-Baha does not say that God created the suffering; he says that the world IS a place of suffering. In my opinion, the world is a place of suffering because people don't listen to and adhere to the instructions of God through His Manifestations.

Abdu'l-Baha does not have to say that, it can be deduced logically. If God created a world that is a storehouse of suffering then God created the potential for suffering. People listening to and adhering to the instructions of God through His Manifestations will not eradicate all the suffering in this world.

Question.—Is man a free agent in all his actions, or is he compelled and constrained?

Answer.—This question is one of the most important and abstruse of divine problems. If God wills, another day, at the beginning of dinner, we will undertake the explanation of this subject in detail; now we will explain it briefly, in a few words, as follows. Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.

Some Answered Questions, p. 248

To continue reading: 70: FREE WILL

Man is compelled to endure them because God set it up that way since we live in a material world where some of the bad things happen are beyond our control. That is our destiny, our fate, for which God is responsible.

Isaiah 45:5-7
New International Version

5 I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you,
though you have not acknowledged me,
6 so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting people may know there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is no other.
7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.