Is Thanking God an Insult to God?

[Copernicus]

Bart Ehrman, in his book God's Problem:How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question — Why We Suffer, examines the age-old question of the Problem of Evil (PoE). According to many Christians who approach the subject of theodicy, evil and an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God can co-exist if God has some overriding purpose in allowing evil--e.g. his desire to give humans free will. According to Ehrman, the Bible does not actually bring up the subject of free will directly. Instead, it gives at least three explanations of evil and suffering:

1. God imposes suffering out of anger towards humans for their disobedient, sinful behavior
2. Suffering is God's test of human worthiness
3. Suffering exists to bring about the possibility of redemption

But, whatever the explanation, believers still have a problem. Humans who believe in God universally praise him for their good fortune. Why is this a problem? Well, it implies that those who have bad fortune ought to consider God responsible for it. Indeed, many believers do see bad fortune as a consequence of sin (see explanation #1 above). But, if God is not really responsible for one's good fortune, why praise him for it? If he is, then what do we make of the suffering of those who are less fortunate? If God is responsible for the good, then he must also take responsibility for the bad. Is this not a dilemma for those who thank God for the good things in life?

 

[Willamena]

/me sighs

 

[ellenjanuary]

I don't understand why you people have to make everything so difficult...

 

[Copernicus]

I agree with ellenjanuary, Willamena. Why do you people have to make everything so difficult?

 

[blackout]

If you're gunna thank god for the good stuff,
there's no reason you shouldn't also thank him for the bad stuff.

 

[LittleNipper]

I believe the author miss the entire point. None of those three points fit want I believe as a Christian. I believe that GOD being perfect, cannot accept rebellion. As a result when Adam sinned, Adam's choice separated himself from GOD. GOD then, in an act of mercy, removed Adam from the garden of Eden so that he would not then eat of the Tree of Eternal Life. In which case, Adam would never have any hope of GOD's redemptive work to take place. Adam would THEN be in the very same predicament as Lucifer and the fallen angels ----- forever dead in their sin and without hope --- in an eternal state of rebellion.

 

[Dunemeister]

I believe the author miss the entire point. None of those three points fit want I believe as a Christian. I believe that GOD being perfect, cannot accept rebellion. As a result when Adam sinned, Adam's choice separated himself from GOD. GOD then, in an act of mercy, removed Adam from the garden of Eden so that he would not then eat of the Tree of Eternal Life. In which case, Adam would never have any hope of GOD's redemptive work to take place. Adam would THEN be in the very same predicament as Lucifer and the fallen angels ----- forever dead in their sin and without hope --- in an eternal state of rebellion.

It seems you, in turn, missed the point of the OP.

 

[Dunemeister]

If you're gunna thank god for the good stuff,
there's no reason you shouldn't also thank him for the bad stuff.

Yes, we are to be thankful in all circumstances. We don't thank God for the bad stuff, but we are thankful even in the midst of the bad stuff. Everything we have, however paltry a sum, is a gift. So thankfulness is quite appropriate. Ehrman seems to have lost that point in his tract.

 

[blackout]

Yes, we are to be thankful in all circumstances. We don't thank God for the bad stuff, but we are thankful even in the midst of the bad stuff. Everything we have, however paltry a sum, is a gift. So thankfulness is quite appropriate. Ehrman seems to have lost that point in his tract.

Why not ACTUALLY thank him for the bad stuff?
If you do ACTUALLY thank him for the good stuff.


Or just thank him for everything without differentiation.
Both the good and the bad are part of "god's" Universe... and yours.

 

[logician]

A much simpler answer is there is no god around to blame for suffering, which is pretty much a random or chaotic thing.

 

[LittleNipper]

It seems you, in turn, missed the point of the OP.

Why discuss points that are flawed? It is like saying that children must have beer, wine, or soda... When the truth is that water and milk are what's necessary for a healthy child.

The three choices that the author offered are all invalid to one degree or another. None of them actually fit what the Bible says to me and I'm the christian. Are you a believer? I can have joy in adversity. I may not be happy about it, but I can rest in the LORD that HE does love me, that what I face is being allowed by GOD to teach me and/or others around me something, and that all this is part of a much bigger picture/plan which GOD fully understands and I may one day understand it also...

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, we are to be thankful in all circumstances. We don't thank God for the bad stuff, but we are thankful even in the midst of the bad stuff. Everything we have, however paltry a sum, is a gift. So thankfulness is quite appropriate. Ehrman seems to have lost that point in his tract.

Actually, I don't think that he did lose track of it. What he pointed out was that the Bible provides many answers to the question of why we suffer, but none of them seem to have any connection to the free will defense, perhaps the most common reason given by modern Christians for the existence of suffering. So his book was about what the Bible actually does have to say about suffering.

The ultimate problem for him was that he could not be thankful for his good fortune without also attributing the misfortunes of others to God. If God intervened in some way on your behalf, then what are we to think of those on whose behalf he did not intervene? If you truly want to love God, then you have to be able to feel good about his behavior. In the end, Ehrman could not reconcile his desire to love God with his inability to feel good about his behavior. It is not an unsophisticated argument.

 

[Copernicus]

Why discuss points that are flawed? It is like saying that children must have beer, wine, or soda... When the truth is that water and milk are what's necessary for a healthy child.

I suppose that it depends on what you consider healthy. Is happiness part of it? But, analogies aside, Ehrman did point out the flaws in those biblical answers to the question of suffering. The point of discussing flawed points is, of course, to point out the flaws.

The three choices that the author offered are all invalid to one degree or another. None of them actually fit what the Bible says to me and I'm the christian...

However, they came straight from the Bible, and he gave detailed examples. Bear in mind that he is a recognized scholar on the subject of religion and the Bible. He is the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill.

...Are you a believer? I can have joy in adversity. I may not be happy about it, but I can rest in the LORD that HE does love me, that what I face is being allowed by GOD to teach me and/or others around me something, and that all this is part of a much bigger picture/plan which GOD fully understands and I may one day understand it also...

And your attitude, too, is part of his discussion. The belief that God has a plan in which good ultimately comes out of suffering falls into the category of "redemptive suffering". He cited as an example of this the story of Joseph, whose suffering ultimately led to the good fortune of his family and his people--until God hardened the Pharaoah's heart, that is. And even then, the Egyptians suffered greatly so that good would emerge with the escape of his Chosen People to Palestine. God caused the suffering in order to bring about a good outcome. And therein lies the problem.

 

[Dunemeister]

The ultimate problem for him was that he could not be thankful for his good fortune without also attributing the misfortunes of others to God. If God intervened in some way on your behalf, then what are we to think of those on whose behalf he did not intervene?

Why think anything? If there are those out there who are suffering, we can whine about it or do something about it. Ehrman, it seems to me, does a lot more whining than acting.

If you truly want to love God, then you have to be able to feel good about his behavior. In the end, Ehrman could not reconcile his desire to love God with his inability to feel good about his behavior. It is not an unsophisticated argument.

It's actually quite unsophisticated. I fail to see how God's behavior could be called into question. Are there people suffering? Sure there are. Is it God's fault they are suffering? It's hard to see why. Is God doing something about suffering? Absolutely. But in doing so, he never goes around us, but through us. So if there is suffering going on in the world, it's because there's far too many human beings not paying attention to the burdens God places on their hearts to do something about it. None of this indicts God; it rather indicts us. But if you're interested in evading responsibility, Ehrman's argument serves quite nicely.

 

[Dunemeister]

God caused the suffering in order to bring about a good outcome. And therein lies the problem.

Ehrman has no place for judgment in his ethics. That is, if God judges someone, that necessarily involves suffering. So if you cook the books in advance by saying that causing suffering, no matter the context, is evil, then Ehrman's argument succeeds. But it seems like a cheap trick to me.

 

[WhatandWhy]

I may not be happy about it, but I can rest in the LORD that HE does love me, that what I face is being allowed by GOD to teach me and/or others around me something, and that all this is part of a much bigger picture/plan which GOD fully understands and I may one day understand it also...

Why must he be mysterious about it and not just tell us what he has planned?:areyoucra Why must he let bad things you to let you know that he cares? Why couldn't he remove all bad things to show how much he loves you?

 

[Danizar]

It's actually quite unsophisticated. I fail to see how God's behavior could be called into question. Are there people suffering? Sure there are. Is it God's fault they are suffering? It's hard to see why. Is God doing something about suffering? Absolutely. But in doing so, he never goes around us, but through us. So if there is suffering going on in the world, it's because there's far too many human beings not paying attention to the burdens God places on their hearts to do something about it. None of this indicts God; it rather indicts us. But if you're interested in evading responsibility, Ehrman's argument serves quite nicely.

God created us, right? That seems top imply some responsibility on His part. And He is the all-powerful one, so why have suffering at all?

 

[Dunemeister]

God created us, right? That seems top imply some responsibility on His part. And He is the all-powerful one, so why have suffering at all?

Responsibility for what? And to what degree? Does having all power entail an obligation to prevent all suffering under all conditions? Have you (or anyone else) tried to create a universe with creatures capable of moral decisions lately? No? Then what qualifies you (or anyone else) to pronounce on whether it is even possible (as opposed to merely conceivable) to create such a universe without suffering? Honestly, most theodical demands for explanations of God's behavior (or inactivity) smack of presumption on the highest scale.

 

[Copernicus]

Why think anything? If there are those out there who are suffering, we can whine about it or do something about it. Ehrman, it seems to me, does a lot more whining than acting.

How could you possibly know something like that? Ehrman said that he gives plenty to charity, but you are throwing up a smokescreen here. The point was that he could not reconcile blessings from God in the face of the suffering of others, who were surely as deserving as he.

It's actually quite unsophisticated. I fail to see how God's behavior could be called into question. Are there people suffering? Sure there are. Is it God's fault they are suffering? It's hard to see why...

It would not be, if God were not lifting a finger on anyone's behalf. If he wasn't, then there would be no point in thanking him. If he was, then why single out some individuals for his blessing and not others?

...Is God doing something about suffering? Absolutely. But in doing so, he never goes around us, but through us...

Don't forget that not all suffering is caused or alleviated by people. You seem to be missing the point here.

...So if there is suffering going on in the world, it's because there's far too many human beings not paying attention to the burdens God places on their hearts to do something about it. None of this indicts God; it rather indicts us. But if you're interested in evading responsibility, Ehrman's argument serves quite nicely.

You have completely forgotten that suffering is not all caused by human activity. And there is still the question of unfairness--intervening to alleviate suffering for some, but not for all.

Ehrman has no place for judgment in his ethics. That is, if God judges someone, that necessarily involves suffering. So if you cook the books in advance by saying that causing suffering, no matter the context, is evil, then Ehrman's argument succeeds. But it seems like a cheap trick to me.

Again, you keep missing the point. If you thank God for alleviating any suffering, then you must face the fact that he ignores the suffering of those on whose behalf he fails to intervene. This is a serious dilemma for believers.

 

[Willamena]

God created us, right? That seems top imply some responsibility on His part. And He is the all-powerful one, so why have suffering at all?

If he created suffering, and he created responsibility for suffering, and he created the ability to discern a responsibility for suffering and a creator for that, what do you think is really on his mind?

It's all a big conspiracy theory.

(Edit: It's not an insult to God (per the subject line), it's an insult to our intelligence.)