Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering

[SkepticThinker]

If you want to talk about the OP I am very willing to do that, however, I am not here to defend myself against your put-downs and insults. Put-downs and insults that you have instigated in this thread. The picture you paint of me is painted by a student artist and not an accomplished one. You are using your paint brush to portray the devious and dishonest person that you want others on here to see, and you will succeed with some, however, my God knows the intent of my heart and knows what you are doing. You will be held accountable for it. Besides, you have little to critique me with when your own path is so diversely crooked.

I will leave it alone and allow you to expose yourself.

Meantime, I'll wait for your non-existent god to deal with me and my "crooked" ways.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If your God exists then why does He allow children to starve and pedophiles to exist. It is one of the most frequently asked questions of atheists and one that they think dismisses the existence of God. On another thread and another topic I recieved this post that caused me to think that maybe it is not something that Christians know or believe. Maybe it was lost with the creeds?

I believe that the answer is so obvious that we do not consider it. You first have to consider why you are here, what is this life all about and what happens to us when it is all over? Why are we here?
Coming here allows you to:

• Receive a physical body.
• Exercise agency and learn to choose between good and evil.
• Learn and gain experience that will help you become more like your Heavenly Father.
• Form family relationships that may become eternal.
• To be tried and tested in the flesh to see if we will have sufficient faith if God to keep His commandments.

Your life didn’t begin at birth and it won’t end at death. Before you came to earth, your spirit lived with Heavenly Father who created you. You knew Him, and He knew and loved you. It was a happy time during which you were taught God’s plan of happiness and the path to true joy.

One thing that makes this life so hard sometimes is that we’re out of God’s physical presence. Not only that, but we can’t remember our pre-earth life which means we have to operate by faith rather than sight. God didn’t say it would be easy, but He promised His spirit would be there when we needed Him. Even though it feels like it sometimes, we’re not alone in our journey.

So what is faith? To have faith is to “hope for things which are not seen, which are true” Hebrews 11:1). Each day you act upon things you hope for, even before you see the end result. This is similar to faith. Faith in God is more than a theoretical belief in Him. To have faith in God is to trust Him, to have confidence in Him, and to be willing to act on your belief in Him. It is a principle of action and power. That is the test that we are here to take. The test of our faith. To make choices that reflect upon that faith in Christ. If we had a perfect knowledge of Him then we could not be tried and tested by our faith because a perfect knowledge and faith could not exist together, there is either one or the other. There is a Mormon scripture that discribes this very well

Alma 32: 17-21

17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.

18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.

19 And now, how much more cursed is he thatknoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?

20 Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work.

21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

And that is the reaso why God cannot intervene and prevent the children from starving or take away the temptations of the pedophile. As soon as He does then the whole meaning of our existence will no longer be tenable and we would all be subjected to Satan. It is not that God turns His back on those who are suffering, I am sure that He weeps for them and longs to do something to alliviate their suffering, however, He cannot do that without destroying the entire Plan of Salvation by taking away the essential ingredient of faith.

Now, that is my belief. As I believe that God is a personage of infinite knowledge, I believe, so the entire Plan of Salvation is perfect with every single eventuality being covered. What do you think?

How does this explain the mass suffering that results from natural disasters (i.e. things that are far beyond human control)?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have immediately shown us that you are bias and bigoted by calling 2.2 billion Christians delusional because you don't see and feel what they do.

On the contrary, it is the minority atheists who have managed to stop that by removing it from our society in their attempt to remove religion from the earth.

What progress do you speak of? The advancement of science? Take an objective look at what science has cost us.

How would you know that. You are clearly an atheist. Indoctrinations of righteous principles is a good thing. Maybe then our kids would help old ladies carry their shopping home instead of mugging them and beating them.

I know to what you refer, however, without any evidence it is anecdotal.

Since when do we here of Abrahamic Terrorists? Come on, you are obviously harbouring some kind of grudge against Christianity so you try to demonise it.

- Anti balaka
- National Liberation Front of Tripura
- Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland
- Manmasi National Christian Army
- The Lord's Resistance Army
- Army of God
- ISIS / ISIL
- The Orange Volunteers
- Ku Klux Klan


Apparently terrorism can come in all shapes and sizes.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is sufficient proof to show in a court of law that secularism is an ideal that, once having found a voice, will impose its values (or lack thereof) in order to attain its goals; that no sooner does it free man from the domination of the institutionalized church than it sells him into slavish bondage to the totalitarian state.

How do you define secularism?

What proof are you referring to that demonstrates that secularism results in totalitarianism?

The US is a secular country (maybe the only one). Religious diversity thrives in the US. As opposed to say, Saudi Arabia, where the state pushes one particular brand of theocracy on its citizens and we find that peoples' rights to freedom of thought and speech are severely limited and we don't find such a diversity of religious beliefs as we do in the US.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, I agree

Unnecessary. OK

Morality is not compromisable. It will always be wrong to kill someone. That should be my morality and the morality of the atheist. Morals are not owned by theists. We are all expected to act in a responsible and honest manner.

I am all for the children being allowed to be children, so why are they being taught that homosexuality is natural and normal and just another lifestyle choice. Even if it were true, why are they being taught things that they are too young to fully understand. Is it to normalise homosexuality from a young age so as to insure that the next generation is desensitized to it?

I have six children who were raised in a Abrahamic religious home. They are all grown up now and only two remain active Christians. I never forced them to go to church or indoctrinated them with my beliefs. They choose for themselves. You tar all those who are members of the Abrahamic religions with the same brush.



What is wrong with the world is a lack of Christian values. Not mens interpretations of those values by the straight forward, simplistic nature of those values. We need to instill them back into society so that we become more accountable for our behaviour. The moral decline of our society is a result of atheists finding a voice in the optimal place, the media. That is where it started and will be almost impossible to rectify.

Is it though? What if someone is trying to kill you? What if you are in a war zone?

I agree that morals aren't owned by theists.

 

[EtuMalku]

Is it to normalise homosexuality from a young age so as to insure that the next generation is desensitized to it?

Children shouldn't be made to decide whether same sexuality is good or bad for them

You tar all those who are members of the Abrahamic religions with the same brush

They tar themselves . . . I might add a few feathers though

What is wrong with the world is a lack of Christian values. Not mens interpretations of those values by the straight forward, simplistic nature of those values. We need to instill them back into society so that we become more accountable for our behaviour. The moral decline of our society is a result of atheists finding a voice in the optimal place, the media. That is where it started and will be almost impossible to rectify.

Obviously we disagree here . . .

 

[Serenity7855]

Do you not contend anything or with anyone?

Yes, of course I do, however, I don't intentionally contend. I rarely contend in my private life. I used to allow myself to contend on here, but I am getting that under control. Where I have little to no control of contending is when debating the topic of children who are needlessly starving whilst some super rich billionaire sits in the Hot tub of his mansion sipping champagne with his friend, when just one multi-billionaire could eliminate hunger in our world and still have plenty to spare. That gets my goat so I avoid it.

 

[Serenity7855]

Children shouldn't be made to decide whether same sexuality is good or bad for them

I very much agree

Obviously we disagree here . . .

Well, that happens, but it is OK to disagree as long as we accept that we have the right to our own opinions and beliefs.

 

[Serenity7855]

Is it though? What if someone is trying to kill you? What if you are in a war zone?

Exceptions to the rule, however, the ethics of taking a life in defence of yourself or a country is debatable and reliant on the circumstances.

 

[Serenity7855]

All I can say to this is that if disagreement is considered demonic in your world, than I am happy that I do not live in your world. I have no desire to live in a world of automatons.

That is how you think amiability and amicability is? Automation. I genuinely rarely contend with anyone in my private life. I cannot remember the last time that I did, however, I am as happy as a pig in the proverbial. Their is certainly no automation in my life, but there is plenty of respect for each others feelings and sufficient love for each other to go out of the way to prevent it..

 

[SkepticThinker]

Exceptions to the rule, however, the ethics of taking a life in defence of yourself or a country is debatable and reliant on the circumstances.

But you said, " It will always be wrong to kill someone."

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is how you think amiability and amicability is? Automation. I genuinely rarely contend with anyone in my private life. I cannot remember the last time that I did, however, I am as happy as a pig in the proverbial. Their is certainly no automation in my life, but there is plenty of respect for each others feelings and sufficient love for each other to go out of the way to prevent it..

I think that a world where nobody disagrees and everybody thinks or feels the exact same way is a mechanical, emotionless world where progress cannot be made through intelligent discourse and the exchange of different ideas.

 

[Serenity7855]

I will leave it alone and allow you to expose yourself.

I am hiding nothing that can be exposed. I have no agenda and I have no need or desire to please men who contend with hostility. I simply tell it as I see it without a need for trickery and subterfuge.

Meantime, I'll wait for your non-existent god to deal with me and my "crooked" ways.

To you He may be non-existent. You cannot see what you do not believe is there. Only those who exercise faith know that you are wrong in your assertion.

 

[Serenity7855]

But you said, " It will always be wrong to kill someone."

I knew that this would be your response as I wrote the very words because I know that you try and digress by the use of trivialities to belittle your opponent, but I have already said that it is an exception to the rule, and the rule that it is an exception to is "It will always be wrong to kill someone. I still believe that to be true, however, I am willing to listen to individual cases. "But I also said "the ethics of taking a life in defence of yourself or a country is debatable and reliant on the circumstances."

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am hiding nothing that can be exposed. I have no agenda and I have no need or desire to please men who contend with hostility. I simply tell it as I see it without a need for trickery and subterfuge.


To you He may be non-existent. You cannot see what you do not believe is there. Only those who exercise faith know that you are wrong in your assertion.

I can't see what isn't there.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I knew that this would be your response as I wrote the very words because I know that you try and digress by the use of trivialities to belittle your opponent, but I have already said that it is an exception to the rule, and the rule that it is an exception to is "It will always be wrong to kill someone. I still believe that to be true, however, I am willing to listen to individual cases. "But I also said "the ethics of taking a life in defence of yourself or a country is debatable and reliant on the circumstances."

Then it is not always wrong to kill someone.

 

[Serenity7855]

I think that a world where nobody disagrees and everybody thinks or feels the exact same way is a mechanical, emotionless world where progress cannot be made through intelligent discourse and the exchange of different ideas.

Well, you have added to your original remark. You have now said "and everybody thinks or feels the exact same way" you did not originally say that and I did not say that we all agree. I said that we do not contend. You are moving goal posts again. Do you need to contend in order for progress to be made through intelligent discourse and the exchange of different ideas. Contention is insistent argumentation not intelligent discourse and the exchange of different ideas. You have intentionally tamed it down.

 

[Serenity7855]

I can't see what isn't there.

Sadly, that is not true. You cannot see what 2.2 billion Christians can see that is there. It is not there to you because you don't want it. Like Jesus knocking on a door with no handle. You only let Him in if that is what you want. You do not want.

 

[Serenity7855]

Then it is not always wrong to kill someone.

For the purpose of this argument it is, the cases where it may not apply are so negligibly small, or unimportant, as to be not worth considering, unless, of course, you use it dishonestly. It is an insignificance and to delve into trivialities of individual cases would be too time consuming and would not contribute anything to the debate.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, you have added to your original remark. You have now said "and everybody thinks or feels the exact same way" you did not originally say that and I did not say that we all agree.

That's what I was getting at when I used the word "automaton."

I said that we do not contend. You are moving goal posts again. Do you need to contend in order for progress to be made through intelligent discourse and the exchange of different ideas. Contention is insistent argumentation not intelligent discourse and the exchange of different ideas. You have intentionally tamed it down.

Yes, I think we have to have disagreements, even heated ones at time, in order to make progress. I think history bears that out.