Debate: If God exists, why does God allow so much suffering?

[godnotgod]

Its really hard (impossible even) to teach anyone anything concerning God, if they reject the spirit of God who is the real teacher who who has the power to convince and prove that God is there, in that the Holy spirit is God. Really good ways to invite the spirit to teach you and prove that He is there, is by studying the doctrine we teach in the scriptures, praying, and attending church.

Just because I question the passages in question does not mean that I do not believe in God. Whether I believe in God or not is not the question here. You are judging me on the basis of my questioning the veracity of a particular scripture. As I stated previously, John of Patmos was exiled to the island of Patmos upon which hallucinogenic mushrooms grow rampant. The horrific nature of the imagery reported by him are consistent with those under the influence of such hallucinogens. Even without this condition, John of Patmos is a fallible man, attempting to communicate what he only THINKS is spiritual truth. It is up to us, the readers, to decide whether what we are reading is real or not. Just because it is in the Bible does not necessarily make it so. There are many flaws and corruptions in the Bible, which have been proven many times over.

Here is some of what Modern prophets have taught concerning the resurrection of animals.

Prophet Joseph Smith:
John saw beings there [in heaven] of a thousand forms, that had been saved from ten thousand times ten thousand earths like this,-strange beasts of which we have no conception: all might be seen in heaven. The grand secret was to show John what there was in heaven. John learned that God glorified himself by saving all that his hands had made, whether beasts, fowls, fishes or men; and he will glorify himself with them.
Says one, "I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts." Any man who would tell you that this could not be, would tell you that the revelations are not true. John heard the words of the beasts giving glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could understand every language spoken by them. The four beasts were four of the most noble animals that had filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect: they were like angels in their sphere. We are not told where they came from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John praising and glorifying God. [See Rev.4:6] - - General Conference held on the floor of the Nauvoo Temple, April 8, 1843 HC 5:343-44, cited in McConkie, Mormon Doctrine 1st ed p 578, and in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 345-346

Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith:
Animals do have spirits and that through the redemption made by our Savior they will come forth in the resurrection, to enjoy the blessing of immortal life. - "Answers to Gospel Questions" Volume 2, Page 48
Apostle Bruce R. McConkie:
Nothing is more absolutely universal than the resurrection. Every living thing and being will be resurrected. "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. 15:22.)....
Just as the creative and redemptive powers of Christ extend to the earth and all things thereon, as also to the infinite expanse of worlds in immensity, so the power of the resurrection is universal in scope. Man, the earth, and all life thereon will come forth in the resurrection. And the resurrection applies to and is going on in other worlds and other galaxies.

Thus saith the Lord: "And the end shall come, and the heaven and the earth shall be consumed and pass away, and there shall be a new heaven and a new earth. For all old things shall pass away, and all things shall become new, even the heaven and the earth, and all the fulness thereof, both men and beasts, the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea; And not one hair, neither mote, shall be lost, for it is the workmanship of mine hand." (D. & C. 29:23-25.) - Mormon Doctrine 1st ed 573-578, 2nd ed 642-643

The First Presidency (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund):
He made the tadpole and the ape, the lion and the elephant but He did not make them in His own image, nor endow them with Godlike reason and intelligence. Nevertheless, the whole animal creation will be perfected and perpetuated in the Hereafter, each class in its 'distinct order or sphere,' and will enjoy 'eternal felicity.' That fact has been made plain in this dispensation (D&C 77:3). - Church First Presidency Message, Christmas greetings, Dec. 18, 1909
Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith (later President):
The Lord created all things for a purpose. Nothing has he created to be destroyed, but that all things might endure forever... The Lord intends to save, not only the earth and the heavens, not only man who dwells upon the earth, but all things which he has created. The animals, the fishes of the sea, the fowls of the air, as well as man, are to be re-created, or renewed, through the resurrection, for they too are living souls. - General Conference, October 1928
Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith (later President):
Every creature has a spirit, and that it existed in the spirit before it was on the earth; the spirit of every creature is in the form of its temporal, or mortal, body. Since this is true, and all forms of life partook of the effects of Adam's fall, therefore they are entitled to the resurrection and shall live again. "And not one hair, neither mote, shall be lost for it is the workmanship of mine hand," said the Lord. (D. & C. 29:25.) Likewise the earth, which is a living body, must die "in like manner" as to all other mortal things, and then receive the resurrection. (Isa. 51:6.) The fact that the spirit of every animal, every fish, every fowl of the air, is in the likeness of its body, and that also it was created in the spirit in the beginning, is a contradiction of these unscientific theories which man has inflicted upon a fallen world. "Church History and Modern Revelation", Published by The Council of The Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1946.

****

While animals may indeed go on after death may be true, but it does not follow that they are resurrected in the flesh. God seems to have provided death universally to all living things as an end to the current form they possess. It makes little sense that He, or It, would provide for their resurrection in the same form they manifested while alive. That is redundant. He would have better made them immortal from the beginning, without their having to go through death's door. What would be the point?

But this is not the issue at hand. What I am saying to you is this: that because John of Patmos did not understand the true meaning and nature of life and death, he proposed an artificial system in which suffering came to an end. This makes no real sense. Life is suffering. Life cannot exist without suffering. That is the nature of life and death. To create a scenario in which animal instinct is somehow magically suspended as an answer to the ending of suffering is a superficial and ignorant view of what suffering actually is. It is a childish view of reality, with a solution offered that is quite infantile and fabricated. Once again, lions do not, nor have they ever, lay down with lambs. John was attempting to reconcile the elements which produce pain and suffering by magically suspending them via miracle, an idea which he pulled out of thin air. What he failed to understand is that real happiness and complete fulfillment is possible even in a world filled with suffering. The key to this is an understanding of the nature of suffering. Once understood, it no longer is an issue. Because John did not understand it, he had to fabricate an artificial scenario. However, his attempt at reconciliation points to the idea of the interaction of the relative opposites, in this case, aggression and passivity. It's just that his conclusion is incorrect. He wants to do it via of some 'other' who achieves it unnaturally.

Christian doctrine has it that some 'new earth' will come about in some imaginary future, but the real answer to happiness does not lie in any imagined future, but in this eternal Present Moment. By accepting the world just as it is, complete with warts and all, we understand what Perfection is. The answer lies not in trying to reform or transform the world, but in transforming our view. When we transform our view, the world is then transformed, for we ARE the world itself.

All of this helps me lean on the fact that the Lamb lying down with the lion was literal.

...which has nothing to do with whether they undergo bodily resurrection or not. The notion of a lamb laying down with a lion is one which facilitates the idea of a 'new heaven on earth', now, does'nt it? In other words, it symbolizes the cessation of conflict, does it not, a condition necessary for such a 'new earth' notion. In short, it is a fantasy.

What I am saying to you is that the real cessation of conflict occurs within the mind. When minds are in conflict, you will find a world in conflict with itself.

We are troubled voyagers on perfectly calm seas.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Just because I question the passages in question does not mean that I do not believe in God. Whether I believe in God or not is not the question here. You are judging me on the basis of my questioning the veracity of a particular scripture. As I stated previously, John of Patmos was exiled to the island of Patmos upon which hallucinogenic mushrooms grow rampant. The horrific nature of the imagery reported by him are consistent with those under the influence of such hallucinogens. Even without this condition, John of Patmos is a fallible man, attempting to communicate what he only THINKS is spiritual truth. It is up to us, the readers, to decide whether what we are reading is real or not. Just because it is in the Bible does not necessarily make it so. There are many flaws and corruptions in the Bible, which have been proven many times over.


****

While animals may indeed go on after death may be true, but it does not follow that they are resurrected in the flesh. God seems to have provided death universally to all living things as an end to the current form they possess. It makes little sense that He, or It, would provide for their resurrection in the same form they manifested while alive. That is redundant. He would have better made them immortal from the beginning, without their having to go through death's door. What would be the point?

But this is not the issue at hand. What I am saying to you is this: that because John of Patmos did not understand the true meaning and nature of life and death, he proposed an artificial system in which suffering came to an end. This makes no real sense. Life is suffering. Life cannot exist without suffering. That is the nature of life and death. To create a scenario in which animal instinct is somehow magically suspended as an answer to the ending of suffering is a superficial and ignorant view of what suffering actually is. It is a childish view of reality, with a solution offered that is quite infantile and fabricated. Once again, lions do not, nor have they ever, lay down with lambs. John was attempting to reconcile the elements which produce pain and suffering by magically suspending them via miracle, an idea which he pulled out of thin air. What he failed to understand is that real happiness and complete fulfillment is possible even in a world filled with suffering. The key to this is an understanding of the nature of suffering. Once understood, it no longer is an issue. Because John did not understand it, he had to fabricate an artificial scenario. However, his attempt at reconciliation points to the idea of the interaction of the relative opposites, in this case, aggression and passivity. It's just that his conclusion is incorrect. He wants to do it via of some 'other' who achieves it unnaturally.

Christian doctrine has it that some 'new earth' will come about in some imaginary future, but the real answer to happiness does not lie in any imagined future, but in this eternal Present Moment. By accepting the world just as it is, complete with warts and all, we understand what Perfection is. The answer lies not in trying to reform or transform the world, but in transforming our view. When we transform our view, the world is then transformed, for we ARE the world itself.




...which has nothing to do with whether they undergo bodily resurrection or not. The notion of a lamb laying down with a lion is one which facilitates the idea of a 'new heaven on earth', now, does'nt it? In other words, it symbolizes the cessation of conflict, does it not, a condition necessary for such a 'new earth' notion. In short, it is a fantasy.

What I am saying to you is that the real cessation of conflict occurs within the mind. When minds are in conflict, you will find a world in conflict with itself.

We are troubled voyagers on perfectly calm seas.

If you notice each of those quotes were from modern LDS prophets. The answers to whether or not animals will be resurrected physically or not now rests on whether or not they are true prophets.

 

[Nakosis]

If you notice each of those quotes were from modern LDS prophets. The answers to whether or not animals will be resurrected physically or not now rests on whether or not they are true prophets.

And one won't know if they were true prophets until/if they get resurrected?

Makes it kind of easy to be a prophet since there is little accountability in this life.

The Pentecostal have those who speak in tongues and those that interpret to provide prophecy. We are warned of false prophets.

You have your reasons for trusting one Prophet over another. Still you are relying on your own judgment. Which I suppose you have little choice but we can still be fallible. One can still be misled regardless of how sincere they are.

 

[connermt]

For those complaining about the other thread being in Comparative Religion...
Have at it.

Either;
1) god is a jerk and likes to watch people suffer
2) god doesn't care anymore about his people suffering
3) the bible is wrong about god loving everyone
4) there is no christian god

I go for option #4 personally.

 

[waitasec]

Well, speaking about the resurrection and many other Biblical things that you don't believe in, all I have for you is more scripture and the exhortation to pray, read the Book of Mormon, and come to church to find out for yourself if these things are true, all of which I sense that you are not very interested in.
The only motivation I would have in continuing our conversation is in pointing out the assumptions that you make until you admit that your foundation is built upon assumptions, or until you can prove to me otherwise, which is a very difficult feat for anyone.

the church isn't the real world

 

[waitasec]

Its really hard (impossible even) to teach anyone anything concerning God, if they reject the spirit of God who is the real teacher who who has the power to convince and prove that God is there, in that the Holy spirit is God.

it's interesting to note that the spirit of god is credited for writing the scriptures correctly but then goes :run: when one interprets it...
:foot:

 

[waitasec]

All of this helps me lean on the fact that the Lamb lying down with the lion was literal.

emphasis by moi,

you mean assumption.

 

[waitasec]

Either;
1) god is a jerk and likes to watch people suffer
2) god doesn't care anymore about his people suffering
3) the bible is wrong about god loving everyone
4) there is no christian god

I go for option #4 personally.

me too.
it's too presumptuous for my taste.

 

[godnotgod]

If you notice each of those quotes were from modern LDS prophets. The answers to whether or not animals will be resurrected physically or not now rests on whether or not they are true prophets.

No, it does not! It rests on whether it is a reality or not. You can call them what you want, but theirs is still only a belief, no matter how sanctimonious or titled those who maintain such beliefs are. Beliefs are not reality. If they were, they would cease to be beliefs and become facts.

We have 0 basis or precedent for making the claim of animal resurrection, let alone human resurrection or the so-called resurrection of Jesus. In his case, it was a singular event, making it even less likely. It is, in all cases, a preposterous claim, that would require evidence beyond the pale. No evidence exists, not even close, only the mouthings of prophets and blind belief.

Even reincarnation has more evidence than any pertaining to bodily resurrection, whether of man or beast.

Once again, the reason this idea was so popular at the time (and now) is because man does not understand the true nature of life and death, and the people lived in tumultuous times, with death always imminent. If man did understand the true nature of life and death, there would be no need to maintain a belief system that included 'resurrection', let alone ascension into the stratosphere.

 

[godnotgod]

All of this helps me lean on the fact that the Lamb lying down with the lion was literal.

OK. So what does the imagery of lions laying down with lambs signify?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

OK. So what does the imagery of lions laying down with lambs signify?

peace

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

And one won't know if they were true prophets until/if they get resurrected?

Makes it kind of easy to be a prophet since there is little accountability in this life.

The Pentecostal have those who speak in tongues and those that interpret to provide prophecy. We are warned of false prophets.

You have your reasons for trusting one Prophet over another. Still you are relying on your own judgment. Which I suppose you have little choice but we can still be fallible. One can still be misled regardless of how sincere they are.

until or if they get resurrected?
Do you not believe that because of Christ the resurrection will be a free gift to all, righteous and unrighteous, Prophet and non prophet?

Yes we are warned of false prophets but we are given a way to judge.

trusting one prophet over another?
If God tell you that you can trust this prophet, would you deem that prophet a trustworthy prophet?
That is all it is for me.

 

[fishy]

until or if they get resurrected?
Do you not believe that because of Christ the resurrection will be a free gift to all, righteous and unrighteous, Prophet and non prophet?

Yes we are warned of false prophets but we are given a way to judge.

trusting one prophet over another?
If God tell you that you can trust this prophet, would you deem that prophet a trustworthy prophet?
That is all it is for me.

Does that include Muhammad?
And I think he was referring to the animals being resurrected to prove the prophecy

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Does that include Muhammad?
And I think he was referring to the animals being resurrected to prove the prophecy

Was Muhammad alive? Yes Muhammad will be resurrected.

 

[fishy]

Lovely yaddoe, as you well know I was inquiring about Muhammad's prophethood. The book allegedly dictated by the angel Gabriel says that god says so?

 

[godnotgod]

peace

OK. So would you agree that peace is the absence and/or resolution of conflict?

 

[godnotgod]

until or if they get resurrected?
Do you not believe that because of Christ the resurrection will be a free gift to all, righteous and unrighteous, Prophet and non prophet?

But don't you see? In the Christian scenario, it is NOT a 'free (ie; unconditional) gift to all'. The condition (ie: price; covenant; agreement) was that God himself, in the form of the Lamb of God, Jesus, had to come to earth in the flesh to shed his blood in sacrificial payment for the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, which had been passed on to all of humankind. Without this payment, the Gates of Heaven would have remained closed forever. So, no, the passage to heaven via universal resurrection had a very hefty pricetag attached. In fact, it was THE most expensive price of all: the sacrifice of God himself, as no other sacrificial host, not animal, not vegetable, was pure or worthy enough.

An unconditional, free gift of resurrection for all would have been God forgiving Adam and Eve and trying another tack. Instead, he condemned them and flew into an uncontrollable rage, sending locusts, deluges, and other calamities in his anger over the ongoing wickedness of mankind.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

But don't you see? In the Christian scenario, it is NOT a 'free (ie; unconditional) gift to all'. The condition (ie: price; covenant; agreement) was that God himself, in the form of the Lamb of God, Jesus, had to come to earth in the flesh to shed his blood in sacrificial payment for the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, which had been passed on to all of humankind. Without this payment, the Gates of Heaven would have remained closed forever. So, no, the passage to heaven via universal resurrection had a very hefty pricetag attached. In fact, it was THE most expensive price of all: the sacrifice of God himself, as no other sacrificial host, not animal, not vegetable, was pure or worthy enough.

An unconditional, free gift of resurrection for all would have been God forgiving Adam and Eve and trying another tack. Instead, he condemned them and flew into an uncontrollable rage, sending locusts, deluges, and other calamities in his anger over the ongoing wickedness of mankind.

Are you saying that it is impossible for me to buy a gift and freely give it to you?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

OK. So would you agree that peace is the absence and/or resolution of conflict?

well... I believe that the lamb lying with the lion is a symbol of peace because I have heard it from modern day priesthood authorities.

You however, have an assumption. Outside of the LDS church there are a ton of other ways that this scripture could be interpreted. Quite often throughout the Bible to lay with someone meant to have sex with someone. This scripture could mean different animals having sex together. I once had a dog that ate grass and tried to have sex with my pig. Prophecy fullfilled! *sarcasim*
I know in the Catholic church each apostle had a certain animal that was used to represent them. For Catholics it could have something to do with that.

 

[godnotgod]

Are you saying that it is impossible for me to buy a gift and freely give it to you?

No, I'm saying that you're putting me in bondage with your so-called 'gift' by making it impossible for me to repay you for it. But even before that, the price tag placed on the gift was never required in the first place. There was no Original Sin which required blood sacrifice as paymet. That is a hoax.

The real gift, in the context of the Christian scenario of Adam and Eve, would have been Unconditional Forgiveness on God's part. Story end.

The REAL gift is that of Higher Consciousness, a free gift from the divine to man, with no strings attached. That is the real story of Adam and Eve and the Forbidden Fruit, before Christianity corrupted the story.

As you may recall, the serpent told Adam and Eve that the reason God did not want them to eat of the Fruit was because they would then be able to 'see as He sees'. This is Higher Consciousness. The gift is Divine Union. Story end. No bloody Crucifixion required. A gift is a gift. It has no price tag.

Hard to believe, isn't it?

Part of the problem is this: Xtianity has Jesus as the ONLY one who is the recipient of the gifts of the Incarnation, ie, that He and He alone is God in the flesh. Jesus is a Special Case. But the fact of the matter is that the gifts of the Incarnation have been freely given to all of mankind a priori, without condition. There is no ulterior motive attached. No price tag. That is the message of Buddhism and Hinduism as well: that all beings are divine, not just some 'Jesus'.

We already have the gift of eternal life. All that is necessary is to realize it.