Let the innocent children suffer

[jojom]

There is no good without bad, anymore than you can have left without right- the concepts are literally defined by each other.

Good grief, not this old failed saw again. Give us a break, would ya. It didn't make sense when it was first propounded and it still doesn't.

 

[bobhikes]

What plan is that?

It would be nice if that's how it worked. Trouble is, far too often we're unable to stop the suffering.

????? What we usually do is to mitigate the suffering the best we can, god or no god.


You've got to be kidding.

Best as we can, meaning until it inconveniences me. If we do our best as Humans why is the suffering so vast. Are you saying humans are not smart enough to reduce suffering? Perhaps humans don't have the technology to reduce human suffering? Maybe we don't have the finances? What is the reason? For me it is simple, we don't really want to.

 

[jojom]

You asked the questions...I provided the Bible's reasonable answers.

To correct, you provided a lot of concocted answers.

Is it only answers that agree with your own view that you invited? Perhaps you should have specified that in the OP......only those who share your negative and sceptical view of God need respond.

Hey, post a reasonable reply---something coming from other than your imagination---and I'll be delighted to read it.

 

[jojom]

Best as we can, meaning until it inconveniences me. If we do our best as Humans why is the suffering so vast.

EXACTLTY! No matter what we do god has seen to it that children still suffer, sometimes right up to their death. So why does god permit it?

Are you saying humans are not smart enough to reduce suffering? Perhaps humans don't have the technology to reduce human suffering? Maybe we don't have the finances? What is the reason? For me it is simple, we don't really want to.

I don't believe that's true at all. We try to do what we can, but fall far short. God has seen to it that curing the suffering of all children is beyond our means. So why does god permit it? What kind of god would do it? If you had god's capabilities would you permit it? I sure wouldn't.

 

[bobhikes]

EXACTLTY! No matter what we do god has seen to it that children still suffer, sometimes right up to their death. So why does god permit it?

I don't believe that's true at all. We try to do what we can, but fall far short. God has seen to it that curing the suffering of all children is beyond our means. So why does god permit it? What kind of god would do it? If you had god's capabilities would you permit it? I sure wouldn't.

So you blame God? Easy way out.

I'm human and I permit it. Why would I do anything other as God.

 

[jojom]

So you blame God? Easy way out.

He's in charge of the whole show here, so who else is there?

I'm human and I permit it. Why would I do anything other as God.

Compassion perhaps?

 

[psychoslice]

Yes, to me its never been up to god to fix anything, its up to us, after all to let an imaginary man in the sky fix our problems would be ridiculers, now wouldn't it ?.

 

[bobhikes]

He's in charge of the whole show here, so who else is there?

Compassion perhaps?

Humans probably shoulder most of the blame. Its not like we don't have the resources. Its that we won't use them for various human reasons.

As God I could grant you the ability to forget your suffering in the next life if you chose to. As a God I could make your next life so grand and long that your short time on earth wouldn't matter to you. As a god I could make it so your suffering never happened.

Here's the kicker as a human I enjoy this life and have the ability to always be happy no matter my physical, monetary or mental condition. You have the ability to do the same. In other words you choose to suffer and to see suffering. Many of the people you believe are suffering lead very happy productive lives just far different then yours. Death, Sickness, Pain, Poorness, Hunger do not have to be suffering especially if there is a God. Suffering may well be Riches, Food, TV, Cars because it will occur after your death on earth.

 

[jojom]

Humans probably shoulder most of the blame. Its not like we don't have the resources. Its that we won't use them for various human reasons.

I beg to differ. Most people in the world have very little access to resources that would alleviate the suffering children undergo.

 

[Neo Deist]

Assuming god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why do innocent children suffer? The most common responses I've heard are:

1. God works in mysterious way. (Implication: children suffer for good reason.)

2. Who are we to question god's reasons for doing anything? (Implication: children suffer for good reason.)

3. What appears to us to be bad is really for the better. We are just incapable of seeing it. (Implication: children suffer for good reason.)
​

Whatever the case, as I point out, these responses imply that children suffer for a very good reason. However, if this is the case does anyone have the right to step into god's plan and alleviate the suffering? Should we be bringing children to doctors and hospitals to stop the suffering? If so, then where do we draw the line between trying to stop such suffering, and going along with god's plan to let children suffer? And, should we even care about the millions that suffered and died in WWII concentration camps?

Free will.

Bad things happen because someone chose to do something bad.
Poor people decided (or accidentally) had children, and they grow up in poverty.
Bad parents/role models influence those around them.
Genetics can be affected by choices (drugs, alcohol, etc.) and passed down.

If God intervenes with a choice, it is no longer free will.

Those that say "you just have to have faith" or something like "God works in mysterious ways," are using the age old cop out answer. They can't really answer the question logically and fall back on a rehearsed answer that doesn't actually explain anything.

 

[raph]

Innocent children arent the only ones who suffer. For your info every living being in this life suffers because life is suffering. The question should rather be "why is life suffering?" Humans dont have the resources to get rid of the suffering of anyone.

So why can God "let everyone suffer?" And still be good?

Because suffering is a choice that we make, and God made mankind remember this truth multiple times in history. Dont cling to life and you wont suffer. Teach that to children and they wont suffer.

 

[psychoslice]

Innocent children arent the only ones who suffer. For your info every living being in this life suffers because life is suffering. The question should rather be "why is life suffering?" Humans dont have the resources to get rid of the suffering of anyone.

So why can God "let everyone suffer?" And still be good?

Because suffering is a choice that we make, and God made mankind remember this truth multiple times in history. Dont cling to life and you wont suffer. Teach that to children and they wont suffer.

best post so far.

 

[Tumah]

Good grief, not this old failed saw again. Give us a break, would ya. It didn't make sense when it was first propounded and it still doesn't.

If you think it doesn't make sense, then its because you don't understand it. The concept makes fine sense.
Things are distinguished by contrast: you can't say someone is "wise" unless you can distinguish him from the "fool." If there is no fool to contrast with wisdom, then wisdom loses its meaning. One is no longer wise, one is just being.
The poster is saying that the same is true for "good". There is nothing that is positively good, unless it can be distinguished from the negative bad. Otherwise its just a neutral state of being.

 

[bobhikes]

I beg to differ. Most people in the world have very little access to resources that would alleviate the suffering children undergo.

This is of course Gods fault, man has nothing to do with the distribution of wealth. Is it God that owns the printing presses and all the material things or Humans.

Second money is not necessary. It is a Human made devise to insure people can maintain their wealth and status.


I have a friend who's son is 35 and does ministry work. The son has been doing this since he was 18. My friend told me a story of how he owns nothing and for his birthday they went out and bought him a whole bunch of clothes and suitcases from the mall for his next trip. When his son came back he only had the clothes on his back. His father upset quizzed him on it. His response the people in the county needed it more. My friend now buys his sons gifts from discount stores and thrift stores.

Unfortunately his Son is the exception when it comes to humans. If we all could live to his sons standards very few humans would be suffering. Good luck with blaming God.

 

[viole]

There is no good without bad, anymore than you can have left without right- the concepts are literally defined by each other

Ergo, Heaven must contain bad things, if it wants to be a good place.

Correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Marisa]

3. What appears to us to be bad is really for the better. We are just incapable of seeing it. (Implication: children suffer for good reason.)
​

This is the one I personally find the most vile. If that's the best way a god can think of to enact its divine plan, then it surely is not god worthy of admiration, let alone worship.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I beg to differ. Most people in the world have very little access to resources that would alleviate the suffering children undergo.

I do a challenge every year where I have to go a week while living on $1 per day... It reminds me how ****ty people's lives can be, and keeps me motivated to help ease the ****tiness.

 

[jojom]

Free will.

Bad things happen because someone chose to do something bad.
Poor people decided (or accidentally) had children, and they grow up in poverty.
Bad parents/role models influence those around them.
Genetics can be affected by choices (drugs, alcohol, etc.) and passed down.

If God intervenes with a choice, it is no longer free will.

Those that say "you just have to have faith" or something like "God works in mysterious ways," are using the age old cop out answer. They can't really answer the question logically and fall back on a rehearsed answer that doesn't actually explain anything.

But a lot of children suffer through no fault of their parents. This should be obvious.

 

[jojom]

If you think it doesn't make sense, then its because you don't understand it. The concept makes fine sense.
Things are distinguished by contrast: you can't say someone is "wise" unless you can distinguish him from the "fool." If there is no fool to contrast with wisdom, then wisdom loses its meaning. One is no longer wise, one is just being.
The poster is saying that the same is true for "good". There is nothing that is positively good, unless it can be distinguished from the negative bad. Otherwise its just a neutral state of being.

To those trying excuse god, of course it does. But it's a flawed notion. To carry any validity it presupposes that what we call good couldn't be the the all-pervading norm in life. That in order for us to appreciate good god had to introduce evil, or just badness. The problem here is in the necessity of appreciating good. If all of life existed as a state of what we call goodness---no evil or badness whatsoever---god's original plan we are told---what is achieved in labeling it good: appreciating good? There isn't any. There would be no necessity to do so. It would simply be the status quo and left at that. Sure various things stand in opposition to each other; black vs. white, hot vs cold, high vs low, even wise vs foolish, although I don't see these as being direct opposites. but they don't carry the detrimental aspects of evil and bad: hurt and harm. And these are aspects of life I don't see a omnibenevolent god content to let exist. But god IS content to let them do so. In fact, the Bible tells us he purposely created evil. Think he did this so we would appreciate the good? If so, this brings right back to what I alluded to before: Where does the value lie in the necessity of appreciating good? There is none. The necessity doesn't benefit anyone or anything. What we call good could be the the all-pervading norm in life.

 

[jojom]

If you think it doesn't make sense, then its because you don't understand it. The concept makes fine sense.
Things are distinguished by contrast: you can't say someone is "wise" unless you can distinguish him from the "fool." If there is no fool to contrast with wisdom, then wisdom loses its meaning. One is no longer wise, one is just being.
The poster is saying that the same is true for "good". There is nothing that is positively good, unless it can be distinguished from the negative bad. Otherwise its just a neutral state of being.

To those trying excuse god, of course it does. But it's a flawed notion. To carry any validity it presupposes that what we call good couldn't be the the all-pervading norm in life. That in order for us to appreciate good god had to introduce evil, or just badness. The problem here is in the necessity of appreciating good. If all of life existed as a state of what we call goodness---no evil or badness whatsoever---god's original plan we are told---what is achieved in labeling it good: appreciating good? There isn't any. There would be no necessity to do so. It would simply be the status quo and left at that. Sure various things stand in opposition to each other; black vs. white, hot vs cold, high vs low, even wise vs foolish, although I don't see these as being direct opposites. but they don't carry the detrimental aspects of evil and bad: hurt and harm. And these are aspects of life I don't see a omnibenevolent god content to let exist. But god IS content to let them do so. In fact, the Bible tells us he purposely created evil. Think he did this so we would appreciate the good? If so, this brings right back to what I alluded to before: Where does the value lie in the necessity of appreciating good? There is none. The necessity doesn't benefit anyone or anything. What we call good could be the the all-pervading norm in life.