Religions answers to the suffering of innocents

[beenherebeforeagain]

My perspective is that we live in a harshly indifferent material cosmos, in which wondrous good and abysmal horror can and does happen, and by chance, sometimes what we call bad people seem to have greatly positive outcomes, while good experience the opposite. But there are also good who have positive experience, and bad who have negative experiences. And for most, the experience of life is a mix positive and negative.

There is much about the experiences of life that humans could, with a little concentrated effort, mitigate for most others.

As for the spiritual aspects, such as karma and transmissible sin, I withhold judgment, because I haven't seen convincing evidence.

 

[Eddi]

Nature isn't God's will?

Although nature derives its existence from The Divine it functions independently of it

Also, I don't believe that The Divine has a will or personal characteristics for that matter

Those are my beliefs

 

[metis]

Nature and more, always more

When Spinoza used "Nature", he meant at you say.

 

[Alien826]

There are 3 and only 3 cases:

1. God is benevolent
2. God is neutral or absent
3. God is malicious

The only one which permits the creation of a material world is case#1. This is not clear and obvious because the implications of God's absolutely literally infinite magnitude are not understood or applied when answering the question: why does God permit harm to innocent children?

Really? I don't see why a being capable of creation would necessarily have to be benevolent in order to create. Alternatives are (your #3) malicious, having motivations that have nothing to do with our existence (it might not even notice that a side effect like us had occurred), and lots more probably.

What I was going to post as the answer to the OP was that of the famous three "omnis", benevolence, potency and knowledge, we get (logically) to pick two out of three. This "problem of evil" has been beaten to death so no need to do it again. I am interested in the answer to the above question though.

 

[InChrist]

No matter what your faith may be, inevitably the question will arise from others: Why does God allow bad things to happen to innocent children? From the perspective of your religion, how do you answer this? In my opinion, Buddhism's concept of karma provides a meaningful response. However, I am open to hearing about the explanations offered by other religions. I do not claim that Buddhism has all the answers, which is why I am interested in exploring this question further.

I believe God allows suffering because God sees the big picture and is in the process of redeeming and restoring creation .


“The Bible spends much it’s time reminding us that our suffering is not meaningless, there is hope. God is redeeming all things for His good and our benefit. And the Bible teaches us to bring this message to those in the midst of suffering.”


“God designed humans to love. But love requires a choice. Love cannot be forced, it must be chosen. Thus God had to give us the ability to chose, He had to give us free will. Without it, we cannot truly experience love.

Of course, we knew the consequences of free will. We rebelled against God, and still do. And our actions brought evil and suffering into the world. But God wasn’t taken aback or surprised. He set out on a path to redeem humanity. Because of love.

We are the creators of suffering. It’s not by God’s design, it’s by our sin. God allows for suffering, but He did not create it. The good news is that even though we royally screwed up. God enters into our suffering in his pursuit of us. Hope is not lost. God is restoring creation to His original design.”

Excerpts from :

Why Does God Allow Suffering? (4 powerful truths you need to know)

Why does God allow suffering? Why would a good God, a loving God, allow suffering to exist in this world? This question takes on a whole different (and painful) reality when we are the ones

www.rethinknow.org

 

[dybmh]

I don't see why

See below:

This is not clear and obvious because the implications of God's absolutely literally infinite magnitude are not understood or applied

 

[dybmh]

When Spinoza used "Nature", he meant at you say.

How does Spinoza describe the source of Nature?

The source of Nature includes Nature.

Nature does not include its source.

Therefore Nature is not always more.

Nature and more, always more

God is Nature and more, always more. If Spinoza meant it like I wrote it, then he cannot be describing God as the Source.

 

[dybmh]

Maybe God is Nature.

Not if God is the Source.

 

[Quintessence]

No matter what your faith may be, inevitably the question will arise from others: Why does God allow bad things to happen to innocent children? From the perspective of your religion, how do you answer this?

Most of the time, I don't. It's a question laden with a number of assumptions that do not apply to my religious traditions. There are many gods, and they are fundamentally not human. It strikes me as an absurd anthropocentrism to ask a question like this.

Why does Storm do Storm things? Because Storm is Storm. It's not complicated. If stupid human stands in the way of Storm - in defiance of this higher power and god - Storm may kill the human. Storm doesn't care the human is there. Storm is gonna Storm. The gods don't revolve around humans and human lives.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I spoke of karma which is the fault of the individual

I believe in karma in my own way. Nothing is brought forward from any previous birth, nothing is carried forward to the next birth, because there is just one birth. The fruits of our actions may come in our life or may not. Some evil people also will die a normal death. It is a matter of chance.

 

[Absolutely Frank]

No matter what your faith may be, inevitably the question will arise from others: Why does God allow bad things to happen to innocent children? From the perspective of your religion, how do you answer this? In my opinion, Buddhism's concept of karma provides a meaningful response. However, I am open to hearing about the explanations offered by other religions. I do not claim that Buddhism has all the answers, which is why I am interested in exploring this question further.

God doesn't allow bad things to happen to innocent people. To say God "allows" is a profound misunderstanding of the Nature of God. God is present in all things including the ****ty things that happen to us. We don't understand it and there are no easy answers. Evil and suffering are all part of existence and divine presence encompasses all aspects of existence, including those that are painful and difficult. And we have to accept this and it is frightening. What matters is what we are going to do in response to evil and suffering. If people are suffering then we should respond with kindness and compassion because that is the immediate need not contemplating why evil exists.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If this is true then why should Gods commandments be followed.

Because by doing so we can live well, loving and serving God and our fellows.

 

[metis]

How does Spinoza describe the source of Nature?

He often used "Nature" as a substitute for haShem. Now whether he was a pantheist or a panentheist is not clear, and many in each camp don't differentiate from where they personally are coming from as how could one tell source that vast?

 

[dybmh]

He often used "Nature" as a substitute for haShem

Did he ever write about a Source?

 

[metis]

Did he ever write about a Source?

Yes, as he does believe in "God" but is unwilling to try and describe Him. Indeed, how can we really comprehend something so vast and so long ago? To him, Nature covers a wide swath even if he lacked any ability to prove much of anything.

Many considered him an atheist, but that was not the case, however calling him an "agnostic" could be appropriate.

BTW, when I was in Amsterdam, my wife & I visited the Portuese Synagogue he davened in but got kicked out. Beautiful and rather large synagogue with no electricity even today that's made mostly from mahogany.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, as he does believe in "God" but is unwilling to try and describe Him

Ok

Maybe God is Nature.

If Spinoza describes Nature, but is unwilling to describe God, then Spinoza cannot be referring to God when Spinoza is describing Nature. Agreed?

 

[Eddi]

my wife & I visited the Portuese Synagogue he davened in but got kicked out

Oh no!

Why?

 

[dybmh]

Why?

Probably propagating prior to the Portuguese pontificating periods of the proprietor.

 

[Eddi]

Probably propagating prior to the Portuguese pontificating periods.

What is a pontificating period?

 

[dybmh]

What is a pontificating period?

No clue. I wrote it, but, that doesn't mean much when I'm being silly.