Does God Want You to Suffer?

[Beaudreaux]

I don't believe that God wants us to suffer but that doesn't change the fact that He allows it to happen. Why He allows it to happen is something that has been debated long before me and will be debated long after I'm gone.

Then is should be easy for you to take a position, given that there have been so many proposed over the years. Why do you think God allows suffering if He does not want it to occur?

 

[Beaudreaux]

We have decided. There is no need to choose.

MTF

There are enormous amounts of human suffering that have nothing whatsoever to do with free will. Disease...natural disasters. God could prevent these without compromising free will at all. Why do you suppose He does not?

 

[Azakel]

The ideas presented cover all possibilities. If we agree that there is suffering in the world (and it would be foolhardy not to), then that means God is clearly not stopping them from occuring. Either he would like to stop them, but cannot, or He does not care to stop them. What other possibility do you propose?

That it doesn't care or that it's not aware of such things in this world. Come on there's more then what was posted there.

 

[Beaudreaux]

That it doesn't care

If "it" doesn't care, then that fits into the second idea presented (God does not want to stop suffering).

or that it's not aware of such things in this world.

Since one is unable to prevent things of which one is unaware, that fits in with the first idea (God is unable to prevent suffering).

Come on there's more then what was posted there.

I am ready and willing to "come on". I'm just waiting to hear an conception of God that does not fit into the two premises you call "wrong".

 

[Riverwolf]

There are enormous amounts of human suffering that have nothing whatsoever to do with free will. Disease...natural disasters. God could prevent these without compromising free will at all. Why do you suppose He does not?

Disease is other life forms trying to survive. Should we ask God to remove them from existence?

As for natural disasters, that's the planet mixing up the atmosphere so that we can have life here at all.

 

[Riverwolf]

I am ready and willing to "come on". I'm just waiting to hear an conception of God that does not fit into the two premises you call "wrong".

Suffering will help us be stronger, and sympathize better with those who suffer thus being more willing to help them, in future lives.

 

[Aquitaine]

We seemed to do just fine for thousands of years.

Whaaa? I guess that depends on your definition of "just fine". Personally, I think the species got batterred, and previous species who were wiped out (like the Dinosaurs). There are countless tradegies that have been unneccessarily inflicted upon Humanity by nature, and other petty thinkgs that a Supreme Loving Creator could have simply removed without compromising our free will.

For many, life is a struggle to survive. For many, life is taken for granted. I say the one who struggles is wiser, because he knows that he could die at any time. Anyone who takes life for granted is a fool. (This includes me; it's something I'm working on.)

Yeah, true, fair enough.

And frankly, there is bad that comes from modern healthcare: overpopulation choking the planet. (Don't get me wrong; I am grateful for most of what it provides.)

Well, again that depends on how you look at it, are we overpopulated, or do our Governments, Economies and Societies lack decent infrastructure to distrubute and consume resources in an economically-effecient fashion, along with high recycling capabilities, maximizing productivity and minimizing the waste? I personally think the latter, and for that I guess you could say I'm naive and far too optimistic - however, we're not just talking abot the problems in the world, we're talking about why this Supreme All-Knowing All-Powerfull being permits such negatives, so in that case why didn't God (rather than naturally aborting countless unborns, and allowing people to be birthed in poverty) instead create a much larger planet, or give our current planet much more resources, or make our nearest planets capable of easily supporting life? Also, to better help our journey of leaving the Earth (if we're able to create the technology before our planet runs dry out of resources, and if our species survives that long) why not get rid of all the debris in space (including Comets, Meteorites (sp?), and Cosmic Radiation etc)? Rather than having one star for our Solar system, couldn't God arrange the planets in a fashion so that every planet can have it's own Star, with the same intensity as our own, and that their cycles/orbits do not collide with the other planets and Suns? That would make colonizing new planets for new landmass and resources just that little bit easier, as the atmosphere on each planet could be almost identical.

In about 5,000,000,000 years, the sun will expand to engulf the first two planets and push earth a bit further from orbit. After a few million years of this, it will cool down into a white dwarf. Scientists have already determined this.

No supernova for our sun; it's nowhere near massive enough.

Alright okay, I see. I was wrong about the sun's final phases I'll admit. It will still become "inactive" though, and then would be no use to us.

You're being uninformed. That's okay, as long as you are willing to accept it if and when you realize it.

Yeah I was wrong about the sun, but I don't think anything else I said was wrong.


"The Lord is enshrined in the hearts of all.
The Lord is the Supreme Reality.
Rejoice in Him through renunciation.
Covet nothing; all belong to the Lord."
-Isha Upanishad 1:1

"Truth is One, Sages call it by many names."
-Rig Veda

"Whatever exists and wherever it exists is permeated by the same divine power and force."
-Yajur Veda

Paul Rusco.

 

[Aquitaine]

Disease is other life forms trying to survive. Should we ask God to remove them from existence?

Well since we're talking about an Omni-potent All-powerfull being, I'd say why not let those other life forms exist on the opposite side of the universe, and allow them to develope. Or, design us so that we can safely "merge" with new bacteria in a positive way that does not affect our free will or survival? But I personally prefer the first idea xD

As for natural disasters, that's the planet mixing up the atmosphere so that we can have life here at all.

Why not just design a planet that doesn't need to kill countless lives, just to mix up it's atmosphere, so that it can support..... life. Such a rubbish design.


Even a Human child could have designed better.

 

[Aquitaine]

Suffering will help us be stronger, and sympathize better with those who suffer thus being more willing to help them, in future lives.

Does that mean, that people who go to Heaven will over time become weaker, and less sympathetic, and would less likely want to help someone?

And that people who go to Hell will over time, become stronger, more sympathetic, and more willing to help others?

 

[Riverwolf]

Whaaa? I guess that depends on your definition of "just fine". Personally, I think the species got batterred, and previous species who were wiped out (like the Dinosaurs). There are countless tradegies that have been unneccessarily inflicted upon Humanity by nature, and other petty thinkgs that a Supreme Loving Creator could have simply removed without compromising our free will.

Nature needs to survive so that we can survive, and natural disasters are necessary for that. It's how physics work.

And before you say "well, why didn't God just make it so that wasn't necessary," I'll respond by saying that all the components and laws of nature have always existed, alongside God. Sure, God could reorganize them, but considering His vastness, and the vastness of the Universe, why would he want to do that just to make a few petty homo sapiens, who have only been on their home planet for a very short time and will only exist for a very short time, feel more secure?

Besides, one of the first steps towards discipline, which God requires, is acceptance of death.

Well, again that depends on how you look at it, are we overpopulated, or do our Governments, Economies and Societies lack decent infrastructure to distrubute and consume resources in an economically-effecient fashion, along with high recycling capabilities, maximizing productivity and minimizing the waste? I personally think the latter, and for that I guess you could say I'm naive and far too optimistic - however, we're not just talking abot the problems in the world, we're talking about why this Supreme All-Knowing All-Powerfull being permits such negatives, so in that case why didn't God (rather than naturally aborting countless unborns, and allowing people to be birthed in poverty) instead create a much larger planet, or give our current planet much more resources, or make our nearest planets capable of easily supporting life? Also, to better help our journey of leaving the Earth (if we're able to create the technology before our planet runs dry out of resources, and if our species survives that long) why not get rid of all the debris in space (including Comets, Meteorites (sp?), and Cosmic Radiation etc)? Rather than having one star for our Solar system, couldn't God arrange the planets in a fashion so that every planet can have it's own Star, with the same intensity as our own, and that their cycles/orbits do not collide with the other planets and Suns? That would make colonizing new planets for new landmass and resources just that little bit easier, as the atmosphere on each planet could be almost identical.

Basically you want an easy life.

Easy lives are not worth living. If we were given what you describe, we would never grow and never learn.

We can't just be given pleasures and easy times; we have to earn them; we have to work for them.

Alright okay, I see. I was wrong about the sun's final phases I'll admit. It will still become "inactive" though, and then would be no use to us.

Homo sapiens will be extinct by then, so you have nothing to worry about.

Yeah I was wrong about the sun, but I don't think anything else I said was wrong.

Wrong is a bad word to use. Using the logic you've presented, you're right. That is the reason I used "uninformed" instead of "wrong." (Not to mention that in these times of sensitivity, calling someone "wrong" can be insulting. )

 

[Riverwolf]

Does that mean, that people who go to Heaven will over time become weaker, and less sympathetic, and would less likely want to help someone?

And that people who go to Hell will over time, become stronger, more sympathetic, and more willing to help others?

No, because heaven and hell don't exist; the concepts do not make logical sense. I'm sure you've figured that out already.

 

[Riverwolf]

Why not just design a planet that doesn't need to kill countless lives, just to mix up it's atmosphere, so that it can support..... life. Such a rubbish design.


Even a Human child could have designed better.

And that human child would remain a child for all eternity, unable to understand God.

 

[Riverwolf]

By the way, Paul, it is valuable to ask questions; indeed, the wisest of men ask questions, not provide answers.

However, it is intellectually dishonest to say: "That doesn't make any sense!" and then follow it up with, "It's nonsense!"

If something doesn't make any sense, then you must ask further questions to others, and to yourself. When you honestly ask yourself these questions, you will naturally become eager for the answers, and seek them out. You may then relay your question to someone who is knowledgeable on the subject, or consult a book on the subject, keeping an open yet skeptical mind. (Skepticism is imperative for finding Truth.) Therefore when your skepticism finds something that doesn't make sense, you contemplate it a bit, and if it still doesn't make sense, seek the more definite answer elsewhere.

You seem to have a willingness and ability to learn these things. Don't sabotage yourself by jumping immediately to judgment. Indeed, DO NOT JUDGE AT ALL until you are well-read on the subject to the point of having the qualifications to teach it to all stages of students, from kindergarten children to students receiving their PH.Ds. (This is something I, too, need to work on.)

I'll end this post by saying that the only absolute that exists is that there are no absolutes, and that there are ALWAYS exceptions to every rule, including it's own rule.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

There are enormous amounts of human suffering that have nothing whatsoever to do with free will. Disease...natural disasters. God could prevent these without compromising free will at all. Why do you suppose He does not?

No, God could not. Pay attention Paul this one also answers you too.


Stopping disease, natural disasters, cosmic radiation, solar flares, meteors, etc... would one and all compromise free will. The motion of every particle in this universe is interrelated, if by however small an amount. To countermand the efforts of one set of particles is going to interact with every particle along the world line of that particle (that is every other particle it has ever interacted with will change accordingly).

I am not able to control animals. Should God stop animal stampedes? I am not able to control air quality. Does that mean God should magically make our air pure? I can't control the actions of other people. And how is this case any different from the previous two? Where do you draw the line at "how much control we have?"

And why is our limitations NOW beholden unto what God should stop or not stop? In the future we will be able to influence and possibly control so-called "natural disasters" of virtually every sort. It is our business how to deal with our environment. Compromising our environment changes how everyone within that environment will act. If God stops a storm, then a rainbow will form and this will inevitably change the way some people go about their lives. That is altering free will.


I suppose the question you all need to answer is "What precisely is "Free Will?" Does Free Will mean freedom from any and all influences? If this were the case nothing has free will as everything is interconnected in some way (everything is influenced by its environment). Does Free Will mean freedom from divine agency? If this is the case then God pretty much gets to do nothing as everything is interconnected. Does Free Will merely mean that our actions correspond with our desires? If this is the case, then God could change everything and a bag of chips and still not violate Free Will, but just how "free" is this will, when our desires are formed based on our assessment of our environments and ourselves which are now subject to indiscriminate changes by "God?"

MTF

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think it depends on the persons perspective. I use to think the God's wanted me to suffer, maybe from some past life Karma. But, I don't find it to be suffering anymore.

 

[Kurt31416]

In the now most popular Everett Many Worlds Interpretation of the Quantum Theory, it's a Multiverse, like the branches of a tree, where everything that can happen, does happen.

It's the same thing as the movie, Back to the Future and about half the science fiction books ever written. In some Worlds, of the Many Worlds of the Kingdom of the Father, Biff is the big businessman, in some he's washing cars, and in some, he's dead. Everything that can happen, does happen.

With me so far?

Now, why is there suffering in the world if the Living Father isn't evil?

Blessed are the Poor, for theirs is to win the Lottery next time in the Many Worlds of the Kingdom of the Father. It all evens out.

And why suffering at all? Because, to eliminate it, some of all the possible things that could happen, some of the possible lives led, are eliminated. You are chopping off entire branches of that tree we discussed above.

Why would we want to kill everything in an infinite number of visible Universes? In entire groups of World lines?

If you care about maximizing life, you have to have suffering.

And Life is victorious!

 

[Aquitaine]

Okay, before I start I just need to clarify a few things.
First off, I myself am an Agnostic, to best describe my "beliefs" and perspective. I believe there are many things, most things in fact, that I do not understand, and that I cannot understand. I don't know what happens after death, and I don't know the meaning or purpose of life.
My posts aren't an attempt to moan about many of the harsh factors in reality, because we all know of course that Humanity isn't the centre of the universe, and that of course nature, physics, biology and so many other factors dominate our lives, that's life. My posts are for people who claim there is a Supreme Creator, and All-Knowing, All-Loving, Omnipotent superbeing that "supervises" or "oversees" our entire existence. Of course, the model I'm referring to the most is the one put forth in the three Monotheisms. However, with you Riverwolf, there is something a little different. I think it would be a good idea if you were to explain to me your beliefs in greater detail, then I won't be so inaccurate with your veiws atleast (like when I presumed you believed in Heaven & Hell, it might apply to another Theist, but not you personally).

Okay, moving on.

"Nature needs to survive so that we can survive, and natural disasters are necessary for that. It's how physics work."

Of course. However my questions are aimed at people who believe an Omni-Potent "God" is above life, and even created life. I have ot admit that I presumed you came under this catagory at first. I have no problem with Nature, in the sense that life just seems to operate in that fashion. But with someone who believes in a super-intelligent Creator, then it becomes questionable as to why such a "poor" design can exist under a divine blueprint.

"And before you say "well, why didn't God just make it so that wasn't necessary," I'll respond by saying that all the components and laws of nature have always existed, alongside God. Sure, God could reorganize them, but considering His vastness, and the vastness of the Universe, why would he want to do that just to make a few petty homo sapiens, who have only been on their home planet for a very short time and will only exist for a very short time, feel more secure?"

Well, it depends on your beliefs, in regard to the Monotheistic beliefs atleast, God himself would actually be above the rules of physics and nature, and would be perfectly capable of altering them. As for the few petty Homo Sapiens, according to the same dogmas, they're apparently "God's favourite/special" race, and life (including the Universe) centres entirely around them and their "path" to God. In your case however, I don't know exactly what you believe, perhaps you could explain your beliefs a little more?

"Besides, one of the first steps towards discipline, which God requires, is acceptance of death."

Depends on how your define "discipline". for example, Children can be brought up disciplined and don't need to "accept" Death, or the concept of it. However I presume you're talking in a more supernatural type of discipline that this God of yours wants. Don't forget, youre idea of a "God" has yet to be proven, so it can only be taken as opinion or speculation for now.

"Basically you want an easy life."

This is where I think you're misunderstanding me. The things that I've mentioned that Humanity could do without, where things like Asteroids, Diseases, Infant Mortality, Natural Abortion, Natural catastrophies, children being born into utter poverty. I've suggested why we couldn't have better mental capacity to create a society where atleast people are born with an equal chance of survival, and that we maximize efficiency and minimise resource-waste, such a society in many ways could be seen as less "easy" in terms of things like material possessions, since excess wealth and waste would'nt be accepted etc.
I 'm getting the impression that you think I want a life where we're all born into rich families where we live in Mansions and don't have to work, and don't have to get out of bed, and don't ever have to not get our own way, I don't see why you've taken it to the oppoiste end of the scale, unless of course you believe that a World without disease, utter povety, infant mortality and natural disasters would be "easy".

"Easy lives are not worth living. If we were given what you describe, we would never grow and never learn."

Who's the one judging now? In a later post you tell me in capitals not to judge at all, atleast not until you have some sort of "qualifications" in that subject, you trying to tell me you've got a PHD in Life? Who're you to judge peoples lives as "easy" and therefore unneccessary/not worthy?
So if someone is happy with their life, and has a happy family, good wealth, and personally thinks he/she's had a good/great life, and since he/she's been lucky enough not to be a victim of a natural disaster, povety, natural abortion etc, are you then gonna say that his/her life was worthless and that he/she hasn't "learnt" anything?
On the contrary, what about the Woman who's child just died after birth, or who's just had a miscarriage - what're you gonna say to her? That it's a good thing that happened, because otherwise your life would've been too "easy" and therefore not worth living, and th she's learn't something from that?
What about the people born into povety in Africa, a kid whose family have been murdered by militias, and who has to walk miles just to get a bucket full of dirty, potentially lethal water, who's only surviving sibling is a malnuturished infant slowly dieing? You gonna smile at them and say they're lucky they've been so unfortunate, because atleast they're lives aren't "easy" and are more worth living?

What about the people who (under God's watchfull eye) never even got a chance to live or learn, because they died in the womb, or as an infant? You gonna tell me that they learn't something from that, even though they died at the beginning of their lives?

"Homo sapiens will be extinct by then, so you have nothing to worry about."

Yeah, you're probably right.

"Wrong is a bad word to use. Using the logic you've presented, you're right. That is the reason I used "uninformed" instead of "wrong." (Not to mention that in these times of sensitivity, calling someone "wrong" can be insulting. )"

No need to be sensitive, just for ease sake - say I'm wrong, I'm not gonna get offended lol.

 

[Aquitaine]

No, because heaven and hell don't exist; the concepts do not make logical sense. I'm sure you've figured that out already.

Yeah, you're right I don't believe in it. But some people here whom I'm addressing do.

Of course since I don't know you're beliefs, I presumed you were into te Monotheistic God concept.

 

[Aquitaine]

"However, it is intellectually dishonest to say: "That doesn't make any sense!" and then follow it up with, "It's nonsense!""

Yeah, true. Just like how it is unwise to objectively judge someone elses life as "Easy" and then follow up to say "It's not worth living".

"If something doesn't make any sense, then you must ask further questions to others, and to yourself. When you honestly ask yourself these questions, you will naturally become eager for the answers, and seek them out. You may then relay your question to someone who is knowledgeable on the subject, or consult a book on the subject, keeping an open yet skeptical mind. (Skepticism is imperative for finding Truth.) Therefore when your skepticism finds something that doesn't make sense, you contemplate it a bit, and if it still doesn't make sense, seek the more definite answer elsewhere."

Yeah, of course.

"You seem to have a willingness and ability to learn these things. Don't sabotage yourself by jumping immediately to judgment. Indeed, DO NOT JUDGE AT ALL until you are well-read on the subject to the point of having the qualifications to teach it to all stages of students, from kindergarten children to students receiving their PH.Ds. (This is something I, too, need to work on.)"

Didn't you jsut judge in an earlier post that "Easy" lives are "not worth living" and that basically, fortunate people with a decent quality of life don't learn anything? Aren't you objectively judging there, especially on a topic that is entirely subjective (perception/outlook on life)? Do you then have (or are working on) qualifications in Life, and the meaning of Life, and have a Degree in "Life judgement"?

"I'll end this post by saying that the only absolute that exists is that there are no absolutes, and that there are ALWAYS exceptions to every rule, including it's own rule."

Yeah I agree, I "believe" the same thing. However, a lot of Monotheists will say/beleive otherwise, since there is an exception, a rule that cannot be broken - God.

 

[Aquitaine]

No, God could not. Pay attention Paul this one also answers you too.


Stopping disease, natural disasters, cosmic radiation, solar flares, meteors, etc... would one and all compromise free will. The motion of every particle in this universe is interrelated, if by however small an amount. To countermand the efforts of one set of particles is going to interact with every particle along the world line of that particle (that is every other particle it has ever interacted with will change accordingly).

I am not able to control animals. Should God stop animal stampedes? I am not able to control air quality. Does that mean God should magically make our air pure? I can't control the actions of other people. And how is this case any different from the previous two? Where do you draw the line at "how much control we have?"

And why is our limitations NOW beholden unto what God should stop or not stop? In the future we will be able to influence and possibly control so-called "natural disasters" of virtually every sort. It is our business how to deal with our environment. Compromising our environment changes how everyone within that environment will act. If God stops a storm, then a rainbow will form and this will inevitably change the way some people go about their lives. That is altering free will.


I suppose the question you all need to answer is "What precisely is "Free Will?" Does Free Will mean freedom from any and all influences? If this were the case nothing has free will as everything is interconnected in some way (everything is influenced by its environment). Does Free Will mean freedom from divine agency? If this is the case then God pretty much gets to do nothing as everything is interconnected. Does Free Will merely mean that our actions correspond with our desires? If this is the case, then God could change everything and a bag of chips and still not violate Free Will, but just how "free" is this will, when our desires are formed based on our assessment of our environments and ourselves which are now subject to indiscriminate changes by "God?"

MTF

In that case, then anything and everything will alter, and continue to alter our Free Will, life itself will alter free will. You could say that with ease, since how your personality evolves as you grow older, youre Free Will has been matured, and all the childhood things you used to want to do, you can no longer do (or, well you can do them, but you no longer want to do them - therefore your free will has been altered).
That's just a fact of existence, our Free Will gets changed/compromised all the time - even by negative things. If a Woman is raped, and she has difficultly trusting her new man, she wants to trust him, and he's a good man, but she just can't bring herself to - her free Will was altered by a negative experience.
In that case, since our Free Wills will always be altered, who cares if ending natural disasters and disease will affect it even further? I know before I said that gettig rid of them won't change our Free Will, but of course I meant that in a less technical way, technically our Free Wills change all the time, and on a micro level getting rid of diseases/natural disasters would change our Free Will - but so will being a victim of one of them. Who cares if ending them will change our Free Will by a tiny amount, it gets changed all the time anyways - may aswell have it changed for something good.

I'm not suggesting God controls our every move, I'm just saying it seems bizarre that this "loving creator" would create such unneccessary things - that for the most part are out of Humaities ability to control, not things like animals, because we can control (physically) them.