Problem of suffering, free will, and Heaven

[Koldo]

Have you ever thought that maybe this was all a learning process? Humans created and sustain most of the conditions of suffering in the world today. Where is our empathy and our compassion? We could end poverty. We can heal many of the diseases that afflict us, or at least make them livable. But why don't we do it? I think it's cheap to blame God when we can do so much, but choose not to. God offers us a simple solution - love your neighbor as yourself. But we don't do it. So the suffering continues. But perhaps you must go through an experience of suffering in order to appreciate the good. Like I said, it's a learning process.

That means god is unable to make us appreciate the good without experiecing suffering. That entails a lack of power.

Curiously, since there is unequal suffering it also means god is also unable to create people equal in their need to experience suffering ( as a mean to appreciate good ). Unless you believe everyone, eventually, suffers equally.

 

[Nakosis]

You clearly haven't heard about brazilian churches.
Satan is still all the buzz around here.

Hmmm...

Brazilian Evangelical Group Bans USB as a “Symbol of Satan”
http://www.themarysue.com/usb-satan/

 

[Koldo]

Hmmm...

Brazilian Evangelical Group Bans USB as a “Symbol of Satan”
http://www.themarysue.com/usb-satan/

That's quite extreme. But yeah...

 

[The Sum of Awe]

"Suffering" is a subjective interpretation.

Good effort though!

Not really. The fact that there are people suffering is an objective fact. The fact that Billy does not like This is objective. His abstract opinion on it though is subjective.

 

[Prophet]

Here's my take on the problem of evil and suffering, free will, and Heaven...

Part 1:
Is God aware of evil and suffering, and at the same time able to stop it?

Please consider that God might possess a greater purpose which conflicts with simply snuffing out evil beings. When Jesus told us to love our enemies, he pointed at God's impartiality as an example of perfect love to follow and contrast with the retributive justice which you assume God would HAVE to champion.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Part 2:
Do your choices and actions in life decide whether you go to Heaven or not?

Yes, but heaven and hell are not places you go after you die. They are places you can find right here on earth. Love everyone and you will find within your Self an awareness to allow your every movement to be in perfect harmony so that you will not ever trade joy for security. Love no one and your awareness will be nothing but a slave and your body the slavedriver, not much more than a notifier when you are hungry, thirsty, horny, etc.

If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.

If you are told heaven is above, than the birds will make it there before you. If you are told heaven is a place below, than the fish will make it there before you. Rather, heaven is inside of you and can radiate outside of you. When you come to know who you truly are, you will realize who everyone else is, too, and you will know that you have a father who gave you a different name and a birthright that all earthly riches cannot buy.

 

[ruffen]

Please consider that God might possess a greater purpose which conflicts with simply snuffing out evil beings. When Jesus told us to love our enemies, he pointed at God's impartiality as an example of perfect love to follow and contrast with the retributive justice which you assume God would HAVE to champion.

[...]

Yes, but heaven and hell are not places you go after you die. They are places you can find right here on earth. Love everyone and you will find within your Self an awareness to allow your every movement to be in perfect harmony so that you will not ever trade joy for security. Love no one and your awareness will be nothing but a slave and your body the slavedriver, not much more than a notifier when you are hungry, thirsty, horny, etc.

[...]

If you are told heaven is above, than the birds will make it there before you. If you are told heaven is a place below, than the fish will make it there before you. Rather, heaven is inside of you and can radiate outside of you. When you come to know who you truly are, you will realize who everyone else is, too, and you will know that you have a father who gave you a different name and a birthright that all earthly riches cannot buy.

That's all nice and fluffy, but not what Revelation describes about sulfur and fire and torment and agony for those cast out of Heaven, and a beautiful city of gold (although maybe a zombie prison) for those righteous.

Of course living in harmony and love in this life will make this life better and one will be more fulfilled in a way that money can't buy, but the Christian/Judean/Muslim doctrine does not talk about that, but rather the afterlife and punishment and reward after mortal death.

Please consider that God might possess a greater purpose which conflicts with simply snuffing out evil beings. When Jesus told us to love our enemies, he pointed at God's impartiality as an example of perfect love to follow and contrast with the retributive justice which you assume God would HAVE to champion.

If God's love for humanity is anything similar to a human being's love for another human being, then this is still evil. If God's love is perfect, he should at any and every given moment try to lessen the suffering of those he loves. He should not hide from our view, but rather show us that he exists and come to this world and teach us how to love and be good and what values to treasure. Not just in the form of Jesus at one particular spot in the Middle East at one particular time in the Iron Age, but at every time and everywhere for all humans to witness.

Of course, you could say (as many have) that God's love is very different from our love. God is a god while we are just human beings, so how can we possibly understand how God loves someone? But why then use the word "love" if it describes something completely different from love? And why claim that we are created in God's image when our sense of love, justice, morals, and happiness are completely different from God's ideas?

 

[ruffen]

And how exactly is social inequality God's fault? Many of those diseases are treatable, but they aren't treated because humans created an evil system that decides worth based something as arbitrary and stupid as whether you have money.

Social inequality is God's fault because he should have learned us how to be good instead of creating us as greedy selfish beings. The omnipotent perfect God shouldn't have created such imperfect flawed beings, and then get angry because of those flaws or not care enough to fix them.

Well, as a Christian, I believe that Jesus made it pretty clear on what He wants us to do and how we can make the world a better place.

Yes, but the words that Jesus spoke on the subject still haven't reached the enitre world's population. And among those who have heard about Jesus, a lot of people like myself see no evidence that Jesus is any more credible or real than any of the other claimed prophets, demi-gods and deities who have been said to walk the earth over the millennia.

Have you ever thought that maybe this was all a learning process? Humans created and sustain most of the conditions of suffering in the world today. Where is our empathy and our compassion? We could end poverty. We can heal many of the diseases that afflict us, or at least make them livable. But why don't we do it? I think it's cheap to blame God when we can do so much, but choose not to. God offers us a simple solution - love your neighbor as yourself. But we don't do it. So the suffering continues. But perhaps you must go through an experience of suffering in order to appreciate the good. Like I said, it's a learning process.

Claiming that humans created and sustain most of the suffering in the world today, I believe is false. Especially when one considers children, who are at least more innocent than adults. About every 11 days, as many children die as the total death toll in the 2004 Asian Tsunami. A child dies every 4 seconds.

Many of these die from poverty, hunger, and easily preventable diseases, and you can claim that these could be fixed by people being less evil, but a morally good God who knows this happens and who is potent enough to interfere, still should interfere even if the problem is man-made, because the victims are innocent. Also, as for diseases that are easily preventable today, they were not a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand years ago. Human evil has nothing to do with a child dying from the Bubonic Plague in the year 1347. Bubonic Plague is one of many many diseases that are parts of "God's creation".

Loving your neighbours will not help when the plague hits you and you live in the Late Middle Ages. Blaming humans and their evil is the solution that is way too simplistic.

When humans have eradicated suffering and live in perfect love with each other, then we will be a holy species.

Still does not help all those humans who suffer and die from diseases that cannot be cured at the time when each of those humans live. Does not help humans who live isolated in the rain forest and have no access to medicine to fix them (and who aren't discovered by the western world because the forest is big, not due to evil). Does not help those brutally hurt in floods, avalanches, droughts, genetic disorders, birth defects, or by locusts eating all the crops. You cannot claim that all these are due to human evil or greed. And if you claim that they are divine punishment for human evil or greed, or that God doesn't care about us suffering from these things until we are a "holy species" in "perfect love" then the evil Monster God is back on the table. Especially as we are instinctively hardwired (ie. "created") as beings not able to live in "perfect love".

 

[Prophet]

That's all nice and fluffy, but not what Revelation describes about sulfur and fire and torment and agony for those cast out of Heaven, and a beautiful city of gold (although maybe a zombie prison) for those righteous.

Of course living in harmony and love in this life will make this life better and one will be more fulfilled in a way that money can't buy, but the Christian/Judean/Muslim doctrine does not talk about that, but rather the afterlife and punishment and reward after mortal death.

Okay, well then you're addressing the portion of people who call themselves Christians who believe in that sort of hell. I'm not included with them, but I surely won't deny that they exist. However, at risk of sounding guilty of a "no true scotsman" type fallacy, I'm going to go out on a limb and put out the idea that these people aren't Christians if that word can rightly be defined as beings who have devoted themselves to the teachings of the prophet, Jesus, but rather, devotees to ideas pressed by a fundamentalist regime which has sprung up around honor of the prophet Jesus. Jesus spoke of this phenomenon in an inciting speech:

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you build tombs for the prophets your ancestors killed, and you decorate the monuments of the godly people your ancestors destroyed. Then you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would never have joined them in killing the prophets. But in saying that, you testify against yourselves that you are indeed the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead and finish what your ancestors started!

Were Jesus alive today, he could re-aim this speech at the religious powers of his time at much of Christendom, the religious powers of our time: You persecutors of the downtrodden claim to be my followers but truly you are nothing more than the ideological progeny of the fundamentalist regime who had me put to death the first time. Given the opportunity you would murder me all over again.

I think maybe you'd like this Jesus person a lot better than the people who claim to be his followers.

If God's love for humanity is anything similar to a human being's love for another human being, then this is still evil. If God's love is perfect, he should at any and every given moment try to lessen the suffering of those he loves. He should not hide from our view, but rather show us that he exists and come to this world and teach us how to love and be good and what values to treasure. Not just in the form of Jesus at one particular spot in the Middle East at one particular time in the Iron Age, but at every time and everywhere for all humans to witness.

Would it be good for us to sanitize suffering without bound or might it be good sometimes for us to experience pain and learn? If lessening suffering without bound is not always good, than it is surely not the perfect love you are referring to. If it is good to lessen suffering without bound, God must be something like Paris Hilton's parents.

Of course, you could say (as many have) that God's love is very different from our love. God is a god while we are just human beings, so how can we possibly understand how God loves someone? But why then use the word "love" if it describes something completely different from love? And why claim that we are created in God's image when our sense of love, justice, morals, and happiness are completely different from God's ideas?

I wouldn't say God's love is very different from ours but I would say that a lot passes for love that just is not. Love is an unattached gift from the heart, with truly no strings attached. Jesus tells his followers to "love their enemies" to illuminate that. People say they love other people all the time, but what if the affection stops coming in? If my love suddenly flips to hate, I prove it was never love at all. It was a fully attached offering that I intended to trade for something I wanted in return, and when the terms of this deal were not met, I was furious with being cheated.

 

[ruffen]

Would it be good for us to sanitize suffering without bound or might it be good sometimes for us to experience pain and learn? If lessening suffering without bound is not always good, than it is surely not the perfect love you are referring to. If it is good to lessen suffering without bound, God must be something like Paris Hilton's parents.

I don't think it might be good for us to experience malaria, or ebola, or being hit by a falling object and being in a vegetative state for the rest of one's life, no. And if I loved someone and that was their probable fate, I'd do anything to prevent it, even if it meant robbing them of their valuable experience. I'd even do it for someone I didn't love!

 

[Prophet]

I don't think it might be good for us to experience malaria, or ebola, or being hit by a falling object and being in a vegetative state for the rest of one's life, no. And if I loved someone and that was their probable fate, I'd do anything to prevent it, even if it meant robbing them of their valuable experience. I'd even do it for someone I didn't love!

You'd do anything hey? Should perfectly loving parents put their children in disease-proof bubbles, leash them, and cage them like dogs so no harm could ever come to them or should they teach their children how to be free and deal with life without training wheels?

 

[ruffen]

You'd do anything hey? Should perfectly loving parents put their children in disease-proof bubbles, leash them, and cage them like dogs so no harm could ever come to them or should they teach their children how to be free and deal with life without training wheels?

In the case of life-threatening or crippling disease, horrible deformities, being killed or seriously hurt from life in a natural diaster? Should a perfectly loving parent prevent their child from being afflicted with plage or mauled by a bear?

Yes.

 

[Desert Snake]

God is not the only God, Satan is his equal,

Satan is messing with the world

Monster God can destroy Satan but doesn't,

Satan is another God, God not omnipotent

Monster God has created/allowed Satan to trick me into a trap in order for me to be denied access to Heaven

Satan isn't a god.

 

[ruffen]

Satan isn't a god.

So then Satan is not almighty, therefore Satan's might is allowed by God, so therefore God is an evil Monster God who allows Satan to exist.

 

[Desert Snake]

So then Satan is not almighty, therefore Satan's might is allowed by God, so therefore God is an evil Monster God who allows Satan to exist.

Satan doesn't have 'might', first time I read that was on RF, recently. I think it's some cultural thing, I'm not aware of any reference to satans might in the bible. The verse that says 'Satan is god of this world' is clearly metaphoric, we know it's metaphoric because we know satan isn't a god.

 

[ruffen]

Satan doesn't have 'might', first time I read that was on RF, recently. I think it's some cultural thing, I'm not aware of any reference to satans might in the bible. The verse that says 'Satan is god of this world' is clearly metaphoric, we know it's metaphoric because we know satan isn't a god.

Okay, instead of "might", let's say "powers" or "authority"?

If Satan has no might, no power, and no authority, then Satan is gone. And the tens or hundreds of million Christians who do believe in Satan, do believe that Satan has some kind of power over humans. If nothing else, the power of temptation, luring people "to the dark side of the force".

If God allows this to happen, all the blood (both literal and metaphorical blood) is on God's hands. If God has hands.

 

[ruffen]

In other words, if Satan in some form exists, Satan is either a device made by God, or Satan has come into existence by itself, unauthorized by God, and Satan could in that case be called a God itself.

So either God has allowed Satan or evil or suffering to exist, and is an evil God, or God has not allowed it, but it happened anyway, and God is not omnipotent.

 

[Desert Snake]

Okay, instead of "might", let's say "powers" or "authority"?

Christians who do believe in Satan, do believe that Satan has some kind of power over humans.

Idk ask in the Christian DIR, there are differing opinions on that.

 

[Sir Doom]

Here's my take on the problem of evil and suffering, free will, and Heaven...

I broke it on the first question.

Part 1:

• Is God aware of evil and suffering, and at the same time able to stop it?
  • Evil doesn't exist and suffering is subjective. God is able to stop these things, but it would require a complete rebuild of humanity where we don't come up with ideas like evil and don't perceive things like suffering. If you are wondering why they are there in the first place its because conflict drives innovation. I thought everyone knew that.

Part 2:

• Do your choices and actions in life decide whether you go to Heaven or not?
  • No, the afterlife is whatever you expect it to be. God is completely out of the loop on that one. God didn't make the afterlife. We make it. This has no bearing on whether God exists or is worthy of worship.

So, how does one get out of this mess? How do believers solve these questions and still believe?

First, I do everything I can to divorce myself from my petty human biases. Then, I try to look at things from God's perspective. Its easy if you try.

The one answer that pops out is that God does not exist. That would give a satisfactory answer to all questions.

Sure, if you don't believe in God in the first place its even more satisfactory. Funny how that works, huh? Its not the ONLY satisfactory answer, however. And so... I still believe.

 

[ruffen]

I broke it on the first question.

Part 1:

• Is God aware of evil and suffering, and at the same time able to stop it?
  • Evil doesn't exist and suffering is subjective. God is able to stop these things, but it would require a complete rebuild of humanity where we don't come up with ideas like evil and don't perceive things like suffering. If you are wondering why they are there in the first place its because conflict drives innovation. I thought everyone knew that.

A complete rebuild of humanity? Why not build humanity that way at the first attempt? Suffering is not just a human perception or invention. Newborn babies with no knowledge that they "should" suffer, still suffer if they are sick or hurt. Animals too. Suffering is real.

So, God created the concept of conflict so that we could get innovation? The writer of universal rules should be able to come up with a more... humane... way of driving innovation, such as a natural interest of finding out things in all human, but no desire to use so much energy on conflict.

Part 2:

• Do your choices and actions in life decide whether you go to Heaven or not?
  • No, the afterlife is whatever you expect it to be. God is completely out of the loop on that one. God didn't make the afterlife. We make it. This has no bearing on whether God exists or is worthy of worship.

Okay... that's not how most Christians perceive death, but you are of course entitled to have your own views.

First, I do everything I can to divorce myself from my petty human biases. Then, I try to look at things from God's perspective. Its easy if you try.

Ooookay.... how do things look from God's perspective? If I was God, I'd do things very very differently.



BTW, it's funny how Christianity is so diverse that no matter which aspect of it one criticizes, someone always pops up and say that "I'm a Christian and that's not what I believe". Of course everyone can believe what they want, but what I generally criticize is the mainstream belief set, like that of the Catholic Church or most mainstream Protestant ones. It is a fact that these doctrines are followed by millions, probably tens or hundreds of millions.

For example, the concept of a second life after death, and even the duality of Heaven and Hell are basic concepts that millions upon millons believe in, but there's always some who believe differently.

I'm not attacking you specifically here, Sir Doom, just a general observation that Christians are so different in their belief sets that it's almost impossible to claim that they belong to the same religion. And if the Vatican is convinced there is a Satan, and for example the official Church of Norway is convinced there is no Satan, one of them is wrong. And how can anyone of them claim to have better access to the truth than the others?

The fact that no matter what one criticizes in Christianity, someone will claim that that is not how they believe in it, does not strengthen the credibility of Christianity, but rather the opposite.


And back to your post, I think that claiming that the problem of suffering is solved by just claiming "there is no suffering" (preferrably by doing a StarWars-esque "these aren't the droids you're looking for"-gesture), is way too simple.

 

[Sir Doom]

A complete rebuild of humanity? Why not build humanity that way at the first attempt?

Pretty sure I answered that already.

Suffering is not just a human perception or invention. Newborn babies with no knowledge that they "should" suffer, still suffer if they are sick or hurt. Animals too. Suffering is real.

Subjective doesn't mean unreal. Also, human perceptions and inventions are real, too. The fact that suffering is subjective means that removing it would be extremely problematic.

So, God created the concept of conflict so that we could get innovation?

Not necessarily, but it does explain it. More importantly it explains it without eliminating God. I believe that was the task you presented.

The writer of universal rules should be able to come up with a more... humane... way of driving innovation, such as a natural interest of finding out things in all human, but no desire to use so much energy on conflict.

Well, we have that also. Unfortunately, without the advances born of suffering, the more aesthetic version doesn't have much to build on. Consider the list of things a primitive human might do. Hunting, fishing, gathering, cultivation? No need. Hunger is gone. Food is unnecessary and causes suffering in other living things. Making shelter, wearing clothes, creating tools? No need. You don't notice the cold or the heat, and there is nothing dangerous to hide from or fight. Lets see... umm... oh right! Fornication! That's still good. In fact, that's the only thing I can think of! There is no disease and raising children is not even a task, you only have to teach them one thing! Naturally, childbirth will have to be reworked (I hear that's rather painful) but hey, sooner or later you'll have a planet-wide orgy as your deathless suffering-free humans just bone like rabbits for lack of anything else to do. Or, you'll have to rework humanity to inexplicably combine bits of reality into things they have no use for and do not need. Or you can abandon this ridiculous idea and keep it like it is. Just like God apparently has.

Okay... that's not how most Christians perceive death, but you are of course entitled to have your own views.

Well, I'm not a Christian. You probably should have specified that you wanted to target Christians in your OP. That way you wouldn't get people like me popping in and messing up your thread.

Ooookay.... how do things look from God's perspective?

The same way things look now except that its all my fault.

If I was God, I'd do things very very differently.

I'm all ears.

BTW, it's funny how Christianity is so diverse that no matter which aspect of it one criticizes, someone always pops up and say that "I'm a Christian and that's not what I believe". Of course everyone can believe what they want, but what I generally criticize is the mainstream belief set, like that of the Catholic Church or most mainstream Protestant ones. It is a fact that these doctrines are followed by millions, probably tens or hundreds of millions.

Again, specify that in your OP next time. That way you'll only have to deal with the arguments you are prepared for, instead of those weird folks like myself that actually want to discuss the topic as opposed to having a dogma-measuring contest.

For example, the concept of a second life after death, and even the duality of Heaven and Hell are basic concepts that millions upon millons believe in, but there's always some who believe differently.

Sure, there are even plenty of non-Christians who believe in Heaven and Hell and evil and all of that junk, too.

I'm not attacking you specifically here, Sir Doom, just a general observation that Christians are so different in their belief sets that it's almost impossible to claim that they belong to the same religion.

I don't think that is a very popular claim among Christians, and I would certainly advise against it myself. Catholics are not the same religion as Mormons despite the fact that they are both Christians.

And if the Vatican is convinced there is a Satan, and for example the official Church of Norway is convinced there is no Satan, one of them is wrong. And how can anyone of them claim to have better access to the truth than the others?

The Pope is the Pope by divine right. That's why they would claim that.

I don't know anything about the Church of Norway, but I can assume it has something to do with the divine nature of the Bible. Just guessing though.

Its important to remember here that just because you don't believe it doesn't mean they don't. You don't have to believe that the Pope was selected by God to be Pope. But you should believe that Catholics believe it. When you recognize that as a fact, its a matter of course that the Pope claims to have better access to truth. The Pope doesn't give a crap what he Church of Norway says, and vice versa. The fact that they disagree is irrelevant.

The fact that no matter what one criticizes in Christianity, someone will claim that that is not how they believe in it, does not strengthen the credibility of Christianity, but rather the opposite.

The credibility of any particular belief should be determined by the belief itself and not the label the person who holds it subscribes to. In fact, the person presenting the belief is practically irrelevant as well (notable exceptions apply).

And back to your post, I think that claiming that the problem of suffering is solved by just claiming "there is no suffering" (preferrably by doing a StarWars-esque "these aren't the droids you're looking for"-gesture), is way too simple.

I said that evil doesn't exist. Suffering is subjective as opposed to objective. For example:

I am journeying East. (Objective)
I will suffer for the whole journey. (Subjective)
I am journeying East because the West is evil. (Arbitrary)