Questions that believers cannot answer

[Trailblazer]

We don't need to experience misery in order to be able to be happy.

And the evidence for that is that there are many happy people who have never been miserable.
So much for the religious apologetics.

 

[Trailblazer]

At some point there is a major lesson in forgiveness.

Forgiveness for who?

There are some larger lessons in life that many of us need to learn.

Compassion for others leaps to mind. Also understanding that our choices impact many others. Sometimes its the family caring for the baby who is in most need of the learning. There far too many situations for me to predict who needs to learn what, but life provides a lot of learning opportunities.

That's true about the lessons, but the person who is suffering such as the baby, or it could be a child or an adult, winds up being collateral damage, just so others can learn lessons.

 

[Trailblazer]

If god didn't create evil, we wouldn't have to learn what it means.

I do not believe that God created evil, although I believe that God created a world that is a storehouse of suffering and as such God is responsible since He created this world for us to live in, knowing that there would be suffering.

And why do some people have to personally suffer evil but not others?

I think the appropriate question is: Why do some people have to personally suffer so much more than other people, if God is just and fair?

Do people who haven't suffered evil not get eternal life?

Again I think the appropriate question is: Do people who haven't suffered not get eternal life?
There is nobody who has not suffered at all, but some people suffer much more than other people
I do not think there is a direct correlation between attaining eternal life and suffering. I do not believe it is 'necessary' to suffer in order to attain eternal life.

 

[Balthazzar]

Moreover God is not subject to logic.

Everything in this physical world is subject to the rules of logic but the rules of logic do not apply to God. God is and has always been immensely exalted beyond all that can ever be recounted or perceived, everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. Such an entity can never be subject to human logic and it would be illogical to think so. It is absurd to expect to be able to encapsulate an infinite God with the finite human mind.

At initial reading of the first sentence, I found myself in disagreement - until you followed up with the paragraph beneath it. Infinity is a difficult concept to grasp, yet - if an infinite God is not subject to logic based on an infinite existence as God, then why do we so often struggle with questions of God being loving? Our finite minds struggle to understand why things are the way they are, then blame is placed on our source of origin and the source and origin of everything else. This seems an exercise in futility. Love, however you define it, takes form in many ways. From nurture to firm guidance to pleasure and adoration to charity and discipline. It seems evident, based on human interaction, parenting, social acceptance or lack of, on to finding suitable mates and the connections between, that we already understand this type of love, so why question what seems so evident to even us with finite minds and mentalities?

 

[robocop (actually)]

If parents are loving, why would they birth their children 'intentionally' into a world that they knew would engender so much human suffering?

If parents are just, why would they birth children knowing some people would suffer so much more than others, many people hardly suffering at all? Why have a child then?

God would do the same because the earth is proving ground.

 

[Trailblazer]

Obviously, I am speaking in the understanding of the "signature" at the end of every post.

1) I think we misinterpret "all powerful". It would appear that the connotation given is "control me like a puppet and don't let me do anything wrong".

If He is "all powerful" - then He is also powerful enough to give the world to mankind. If He cannot do that, then He isn't all-powerful. Within my faith paradigm, we have precedent, or the law of firsts. In the beginning there was no sickness, disease, death , misfortunes et al.

Man was in perfect communion with fulness of life.

In the end there will also be no sickness, disease, misfortunes, death et al.. man will once again be in perfect communion with the fulness of life.

it was when man decided to not have God in his life that all the misfortunes came into being... so, ultimately, it is still man's fault.

So, as per above, ultimately man creates suffering to the point that a rape victim is still the result of someones choice of not following God.

I think that is a theological debate. We will never know because it was opened.

but people do (which was the point)

Again, my signature. And the suffering was created by man.

Jesus who took on all sin to restore communion. A new earth (eventually) where there will be no more crying or dying.

In the meantime - we are still in charge. Having abundance of food, people starve. Have abundance of land, countries want more and create wars. Having authority to serve they become selfish instead of selfless.

Man is a mess so "For God so love the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosever believes in Him would not perish but have everlasting life for God did not send the son to condemn the world but to save the world".

(Of course, all within the context of my signature)

Thanks for your reply but for many reasons I think it is a bit Optimistic.

I do not have time to address all of the points right now, but since Christian beliefs differ from Baha'i beliefs, suffice to say we have a different belief about why suffering came into the world and how it will be ameliorated in the future. I believe that in the future there will be a new race of man who is spiritual so there will be a lot less suffering in the world, but I do not believe that there will ever be no more crying or dying

I disagree that all suffering is brought on by man, as I believe that only the suffering that resulted from something we chose with free will was brought on by man. But what we agree on is that much suffering is caused by human selfishness and people turning away from God.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's his most essential attribute.

Why is it so essential?

 

[Trailblazer]

What about love or perhaps the question should be: "What is love"?

That is a very good question, perhaps the most important question of all.
Without defining love we cannot discuss whether God is loving or not....
What would it mean to say God is loving?
What would we expect to see if God is loving?

Finally, whether we believe that God is loving or not is highly subjective. It can never be proven that God is loving, it can only be believed.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Not to me, can you explain why you think that makes sense?

It only makes sense to people who are worried about overpopulation.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why is it so essential?

Because otherwise God couldn't have real relationship with us.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You 'believe' that the Bible offers you a reason.
Believers of my religion also think they know the reason.
I don't claim to know the reason, only God knows the reason for creating a world of suffering.
But despite the reason, the suffering in this world calls into question whether God is loving, for any logical person.

Why?
This world isn't paradise. You were never promised a rose garden life.

 

[Sheldon]

It only makes sense to people who are worried about overpopulation.

No, I just explained that. I am worried about overpopulation, but your claim didn't make any sense to me. Can you explain why you think it makes sense?

 

[Kenny]

Thanks for your reply but for many reasons I think it is a bit Optimistic.

I do not have time to address all of the points right now, but since Christian beliefs differ from Baha'i beliefs, suffice to say we have a different belief about why suffering came into the world and how it will be ameliorated in the future. I believe that in the future there will be a new race of man who is spiritual so there will be a lot less suffering in the world, but I do not believe that there will ever be no more crying or dying

I disagree that all suffering is brought on by man, as I believe that only the suffering that resulted from something we chose with free will was brought on by man. But what we agree on is that much suffering is caused by human selfishness and people turning away from God.

And that is OK. What will be, will be and I leave a wide berth for me to be wrong.

I get my position from:

Rev 21:
21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

 

[Trailblazer]

why do we so often struggle with questions of God being loving?

I am not sure how many believers struggle with that question, as most just accept it without question, particularly those of the Abrahamic faiths, since it is in their scriptures. I struggle with it because it does not make sense to me that a loving God would create a world with so much suffering, and even though it is written in the scriptures of my religion that God is all-loving I cannot just accept that without question.

Our finite minds struggle to understand why things are the way they are, then blame is placed on our source of origin and the source and origin of everything else. This seems an exercise in futility.

You are correct about that, it is an exercise in futility because we cannot know what an infinite and all-knowing God knows. That is why I always say I don't know, I just question, and I might be wrong. I probably am wrong, and God is loving, and I just cannot grasp how that is possible with my finite mind.

Love, however you define it, takes form in many ways. From nurture to firm guidance to pleasure and adoration to charity and discipline. It seems evident, based on human interaction, parenting, social acceptance or lack of, on to finding suitable mates and the connections between, that we already understand this type of love, so why question what seems so evident to even us with finite minds and mentalities?

Yes, we can understand human to human love and the forms it takes but God to human love is harder to understand. What would we expect to see if God loves us? Off the top of my head the one thing we see is that God sends Messengers to guide us, and that is a sign of love.

 

[Balthazzar]

That is a very good question, perhaps the most important question of all.
Without defining love we cannot discuss whether God is loving or not....
What would it mean to say God is loving?
What would we expect to see if God is loving?

Finally, whether we believe that God is loving or not is highly subjective. It can never be proven that God is loving, it can only be believed.

An objective truth would be parental love, although this is not the reality in many situations. God, however you define God, is less objectively understood to be loving, even though our every observed objective fact is subjectively processed. North pole and south, light in the darkness, heat and cold, pleasure and pain, etc - Dual in experience, yet consisting of the same substance. I'm suggesting the obvious - It takes two to tango - It takes both objective reality and subjective observation to form a truth or reality or an opinion by human faculty.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because otherwise God couldn't have real relationship with us.

Well, I have to concede to that since it is also a teaching of my religion!

See #5. below. What it means is that if we do not love God, God's love cannot reach us since we cut off our connection to God, and we need a connection to God in order to have a relationship with God. However, we have to believe that God loves us, as stated in #3 and #4, in order to 'want' to move on to #5. If we don't believe that God is loving we are not going to want a relationship with God.

3: O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.

4: O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life.”

5: O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant.

The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

 

[Trailblazer]

Why?
This world isn't paradise. You were never promised a rose garden life.

True, yet many people have such a life, while others suffer.
That is called inequity.

 

[Trailblazer]

And that is OK. What will be, will be and I leave a wide berth for me to be wrong.

I get my position from:

Rev 21:
21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

I also believe what it says in those verses, but I interpret them differently than you do, so I think they mean something different than you think they mean.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

At some point there is a major lesson in forgiveness.

There are some larger lessons in life that many of us need to learn.

Compassion for others leaps to mind. Also understanding that our choices impact many others. Sometimes its the family caring for the baby who is in most need of the learning. There far too many situations for me to predict who needs to learn what, but life provides a lot of learning opportunities.

None of which deals with the fact that there are literally brain damaged babies being born with no hope of rehabilitation or the capacity to learn. Are they mere sacrifices to teach others? Why do we need a drug dependant baby born every 25 mins in the US alone?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming God for this or suggesting he 'should' fix it. I'm suggesting that this is evidence that not all pain is beneficial to growth.

Unfortunately I can come up with plenty of more compelling and darker examples. This was merely a simple and common one I thought illustrative of my point.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You really do not have a choice. If you exercise your free will to not worship him he condemns you to hell. Your free will comes with a price. We’re not even talking about transgressions, we’re talking about rejection of him. If you reject him he rejects you...................
I have free will to rob a bank or not rob a bank. If I rob a bank there are consequences of exercising my free will. But that is not the same as refusing to worship God and being punished. His punishment is based in his need for worship. Punishment for robbing a bank is based in the fact that money is not mine. Why does God need or want to be worshiped? Needs and wants are human characteristics. God, then, is no better than humans in needing and wanting. Oh, but he doesn’t need or want worship? So what’s the problem, why the punishment?

In the Bible No one is condemned to hell because biblical hell is the temporary stone-cold grave for the sleeping dead.
'Sleep in death' according to Jesus and the OT - Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5; John 11:11-14.
Sin is what sends a person to one's death, biblical hell/grave. If we could stop sinning we would Not die.
Because we can't resurrect oneself or another we need someone who can resurrect us. Jesus will - Rev. 1:18
Yes, if we reject God and won't repent from wickedness then God does reject the wicked - Psalms 92:7; 104:35

When we think of honoring a person, or serving a person, we do Not think of worshipping that person.
Whereas 'worship' goes beyond what is seen and for God's Glory because God is: Creator and Father.
The word father means: life giver. Un-seen God is Father our Life Giver.
God being responsible for our lives then we should be thankful to do things for His Glory - 1 Cor. 10:31
Doing or putting God's will, His purpose first ahead of our own serving Him by obeying Him is worship.

Instead of punishment, the God of the Bible offers us : everlasting life.
A resurrection to Heaven for some - Luke 22:28-30; Revelation 20:6; 2:10; 5:9-10.
A resurrection on Earth for the majority of mankind to 'enjoy life forever on Earth' as originally offered to Adam before his downfall.