Why doesn't God stop evil, pain and suffering?

[Beaudreaux]

First of all, you need to keep in mind that there are over 30,000 Christian denominations in the world today and that no two of them teach exactly the same things. So when you begin a question by stating, "Christian doctrine indicated...", you're going to be describing the doctrines of some Christians but not all Christians. The only Christian doctrine I am comfortable in explaining to you is mine, so take it for what it's worth.

Point taken.

I don't believe in a literal "lake of fire," for starters, nor do I believe in an "eternal punishment" for those individuals who don't "pass the test." I believe that, for the truly wicked, there will be a period of punishment but not something that is never-ending. It won't be physical in nature, but emotional. Secondly, I don't think that not passing the test means that a person is "wicked." There are as many reasons that people don't pass the test as there are people. Some reasons are more justifiable than others. I don't believe that death is the end of the line. It's the end of mortality, but mortality is just a tiny moment with respect to eternity. I believe that there will be a period of time after death but prior to the resurrection and final judgment when the playing field will be leveled and when there will be further opportunities for those who were sincere in their efforts during mortality but still didn't get it quite right.

So is it fair to say that you are ultimately a Universalist? That you believe all will share in eternal reward regardless of their actions here on earth?

I should probably have indicated that not everyone will have an opportunity for further growth. Those who do, will not fail. There will be no limit to their potential.

Assuming these people still have free will, how will God set it up so that they will always make the right choices for eternity? I don't recall if you were one of the ones who said this earlier, but many contend that God cannot do this. That he cannot give us free will without a lot of us going down the road of evil.

 

[Renji]

Lawrence, if you believe in God, do you believe he has the power to create a world where there are no Tsunamis, earthquakes or hurricanes? Do you believe he has the power to create a world without diseases that kill children?

Yes, but a world with no or just one climate or weather? I don't think so. We can't survive that kind of world. As I said, it is weather that sometimes affect the surroundings ( it affects us through things like diseases, tsunamis, earthquakes,hurricanes,etc). Well, all of us have bacteria in our body,house and surroundings which can make us ill if we don't illiminate them (we illiminate them through cleaning and medication and not by praying "God, please make this place/body clean from bacterias". God is not a magician). Deceases can be caused by frequencies of a virus. God created things like water,earth,fire and air. Now, is it not possible for microorganisms to survive in those things through the years? And illness can sometimes be healed through medication and faith. If that happens, then God wants to help us and not to make us suffer. And why are you associating all the pain and suffering in this world to God while there are things that are caused or produced through humans or natural process?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beaudreaux
Lawrence, if you believe in God, do you believe he has the power to create a world where there are no Tsunamis, earthquakes or hurricanes? Do you believe he has the power to create a world without diseases that kill children?

Yes,

If God can create a world without evil, suffring, sin or death then why did he create this one? Why did he create a world where infants die of AIDS, 3 year olds are swept out of their parents arms to drown in a tsunami, etc.?

Your argument that God did not CAUSE the Asian Tsunami misses the point. The day before the quake that caused the Tsunami would happen, God COULD HAVE STOPPED IT. He clearly did not. That means he either was not able to stop it (which is hard to believe since He can supposedly do anything) or he was unwilling to stop it (which is hardly consistent with the concept of a loving God).

 

[BucephalusBB]

If God can create a world without evil, suffring, sin or death then why did he create this one?

Maybe he did, saw that nothing happened on that world, got bored and decided to make a more extreme world..

 

[Renji]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beaudreaux
Lawrence, if you believe in God, do you believe he has the power to create a world where there are no Tsunamis, earthquakes or hurricanes? Do you believe he has the power to create a world without diseases that kill children?




If God can create a world without evil, suffring, sin or death then why did he create this one? Why did he create a world where infants die of AIDS, 3 year olds are swept out of their parents arms to drown in a tsunami, etc.?

Your argument that God did not CAUSE the Asian Tsunami misses the point. The day before the quake that caused the Tsunami would happen, God COULD HAVE STOPPED IT. He clearly did not. That means he either was not able to stop it (which is hard to believe since He can supposedly do anything) or he was unwilling to stop it (which is hardly consistent with the concept of a loving God).

Well, death is a natural thing. All men die, but with different causes. We can't avoid death. It is normal, for our body undergoes changes that can be good or bad, including those diseases. God could have stopped it, hmm, if I'm not mistaken, it is written that there's time for everything, including birth and death,in that case God may or may not interfere with it (case to case basis).

In Ecclesiastes 3, it says :

There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:

a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,

a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,

a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,

a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,

a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,

a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,

a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

A world without evil or sin? I don't think so for there are evil things produced out of our human hearts (Our spirit is willing, but our flesh is weak). God has nothing to do with it because evilness is part of our freewill (again and again). It's up to us if we do evil or not. Dude, I'm not an expert of the Bible, dogma or whatsoever things that inlude in my religion but I knew that there must be a reason for this and unfortunately, I'm not God to reason it out perfectly.

 

[Storm]

I wanted to share this, from Jacob's brilliant recap of Serenity on Television without Pity:

The Operative pulls his huge sword, and Mal pulls...a tiny screwdriver. It's a tiny visual joke on the way to a vicious fight, this way and that on the broadcast platform, before the Operative stabs him (outside the frame, because if we saw him get stabbed as bad as he just did, we'd assume he was dead). "Do you know what your sin is, Mal?" Mal smiles. "Aw hell. I'm a fan of all seven." And Joss makes an interesting point here, which is that this is a literal response, and not a quip: "sin" as a concept is meaningless when the defining authority is as crazy -- and as demonstrably evil by the categorical imperative -- as the Operative and his bosses.

But even then, there's a higher point, which is that "sin," in the sense that the Operative means, and means to enforce here as he did in the beginning, is in itself the most sinful concept imaginable. Imposing their lack, through Pax, through legislation, through signing subjective moral concepts into law, circumvents God's plan entirely, and means taking on God's role and making of oneself an idol. It perverts religion and politics, and all of us love one more than the other. Without pride and the choices it presents, there can be no faith: no assertion that one's relationship with God, against all reason, is imperative and real. Without envy, there is no hope, no comparison, no competition, no dissatisfaction, no reason to try, to succeed. Without gluttony, in a world where greed is eliminated, there is no way to choose charity. Without lust, we all die, and without acknowledgement of lust's universality, there is no fortitude. Without anger, without the holy anger of the proletariat, of the people against the unlawful, there can be no justice. Without greed or sloth, there is no moderation, no temperance or prudence -- we are unable to look at ourselves critically and see long-term v. short-term effects. We stop growing them when the state mandates these lacks, takes away these choices: we all go to sleep. And we don't wake up. And Oceania keeps fighting, and the signal is silenced.

I think I just became a ******* Libertarian. And possibly a Christian.
​

It's pretty much my original point, just expressed far more beautifully.

 

[Katzpur]

So is it fair to say that you are ultimately a Universalist? That you believe all will share in eternal reward regardless of their actions here on earth?

I wouldn't say I'm a universalist in the strictest sense of the word, but pretty darned close. I could elaborate, but I'm not sure that an explanation would have much to do with the OP. I will, though, if you'd like.

Assuming these people still have free will, how will God set it up so that they will always make the right choices for eternity? I don't recall if you were one of the ones who said this earlier, but many contend that God cannot do this. That he cannot give us free will without a lot of us going down the road of evil.

Well, I see free will as being more or less immaterial once the Final Judgment is over and everyone's eternal reward established. Since I was talking about those individuals to whom God will give the potential to progress forever, my response will be concerning them only. I believe that it is through their obedience and faithfulness in keeping God's commandments that they will be given this blessing, by the time they have reached the point where they could screw up, they'll be so far down the road towards their final destination (which is ultimately to become like their Father in Heaven) that it's highly improbable that they would suddenly decide to throw it all away. In theory I suppose they could, but given the kind of people they are, it's just not likely at all.

 

[Sententia]

I wouldn't say I'm a universalist in the strictest sense of the word, but pretty darned close. I could elaborate, but I'm not sure that an explanation would have much to do with the OP. I will, though, if you'd like.

Well, I see free will as being more or less immaterial once the Final Judgment is over and everyone's eternal reward established. Since I was talking about those individuals to whom God will give the potential to progress forever, my response will be concerning them only. I believe that it is through their obedience and faithfulness in keeping God's commandments that they will be given this blessing, by the time they have reached the point where they could screw up, they'll be so far down the road towards their final destination (which is ultimately to become like their Father in Heaven) that it's highly improbable that they would suddenly decide to throw it all away. In theory I suppose they could, but given the kind of people they are, it's just not likely at all.

My real problem with responses like this is that it assumes there is a god and eternal reward. I know you believe such but that doesnt make it so.

When I start trying to interpret it I just get frustrated and angry at humans in general. A gullible lot we seem to be.

God doesnt stop anything because there is no god. I say that in the same tone and belief that I say there is no demons, unicorns or leprechauns.

God can't stop suffering because the humans that could decide why try when their doing everything god says and the big picture is his or her problem and not theirs. Their gonna get their eternal rewards.

I guess I consider it selfish maybe? I dunno. I have been pondering this recently.

 

[Katzpur]

My real problem with responses like this is that it assumes there is a god and eternal reward. I know you believe such but that doesnt make it so.

I know, Balance. I know you don't believe it, but your lack of belief doesn't make it false. One of us is right and one of us is wrong, and neither of us is going to know for sure as long as we're around here to talk about it.

 

[Sententia]

I know, Balance. I know you don't believe it, but your lack of belief doesn't make it false. One of us is right and one of us is wrong, and neither of us is going to know for sure as long as we're around here to talk about it.

There is no guarantee either us will know after either. This particular line is given to me a lot by many different people. Ultimately to me its as if you believe in genies. You say neither you or I can know genies exist until you find the right lamp and rub it... Your lack of belief means nothing until you find that lamp.

If I were to find a lamp and nothing happened... of course that would be the wrong lamp. Long ago God was said to live in the mountains, the sky, the stars, and in his own plane of existance. Well the first two held no gods but the view is great.

I guess part of why I reject the concept of god is because of a rejection of superstition but there is more to why I disbelieve.

I read a Breifer History in time and there is quote. (Its on wikipedia too)

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

This is implying infinite regression. Quite clever. Infinite regressions would prevent most god concepts from existing.

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject."

 

[Luminous]

infinity is not a number so... there is no ultimate God?

 

[Katzpur]

There is no guarantee either us will know after either.

You're absolutely correct. If you're right, I'll never know, but if I'm right, you will. (In that event, I promise not to say, "I told you so!")

 

[DarkSun]

Most monotheistic religions (certainly Christianity and Judaism) say three things about God:

• He's omniscient and omnipotent (there is nothing he does not know or cannot do)
• He's omnibenevolent (he is all-loving)
• Evil and pain and suffering are real in the world

But one look at the world around us shows us that these three things cannot all be true. Consider:

• The day after Christmas in 2004 an earthquake in the Indian Ocean caused a series of massive Tsunami that killed over a quarter million people. Parents who could not hang on to their children watched as they were drowned in the flood.
• A year later in 2005, a hurricane ripped into the southeastern U.S. killing over 1,800 people. In New Orleans, homeowners retreated to their attics to escape the rising flood waters, only to huddle together in fear as the water rose and they watched each other drown.
• Around 10,000 BCE, a virus came into the world that killed 20% - 60% of the people it infected (except for children, where the mortality rate was 80%). This was not a quick death, but often took days of being covered in painful pustules on the skin and in the throat. In the 18th century, it killed 400,000 people per year and was responsibile for a third of all blindness. During the 20th century it is estimated that this virus killed 3 - 5 hundred million people.
• Too many more like this to list them all...

If the Christian God exists, he knew about the Asian Tsunami, Hurrican Katrina and Smallpox before they occured, yet he did nothing to prevent them from happening. Why not?

Imagine the person you love most in the world. Now imagine that person in a hospital bed before you wracked in pain and dying of pancreatic cancer. After attending to your loved one for several days and taking in the full extent of their suffering, a doctor walks up to you and says "You know I have a cure for that type of cancer." You think to yourself "this is fantastic! My loved one can be spared!" But when you ask the doctor to give your loved one the cure, he refuses. You beg, you plead, you take legal action, but none of it works. The doctor refuses and your loved one dies shortly afterward.

What would we say about this doctor? Would we say he was a good man? No! We would probabaly say he is a demon. But God is just like the doctor. He sits back and watches the evil and suffering that plagues humanity knowing full well that he could prevent it, yet he refuses to.

So, what can we say about God?

Since God is omniscient and omnipotent, maybe He is the only person who really knows why that person had to die... as cruel as it may be to the people involved.

 

[Luminous]

I know, Balance. I know you don't believe it, but your lack of belief doesn't make it false. One of us is right and one of us is wrong, and neither of us is going to know for sure as long as we're around here to talk about it.

: Or... you are both wrong.

 

[Luminous]

Since God is omniscient and omnipotent, maybe He is the only person who really knows why that person had to die... as cruel as it may be to the people involved.

So they just kinda had to die?
:sarcastic: i've always wondered why infanticide is a crime.

 

[Katzpur]

: Or... you are both wrong.

Maybe you could explain that one. BalanceFx believes there is no God. I believe there is a God. You tell me how we could both be wrong.

 

[BucephalusBB]

Maybe you could explain that one. BalanceFx believes there is no God. I believe there is a God. You tell me how we could both be wrong.

God is dead. Technically you would still be the one who is right, but you would not have your thoughts exactly.
In fact, maybe that would be more that you are both right. At that moment there is no God, so BalanceFx would be right, yet you answered question with God wich would be right. Then again, I don't think that BalanceFx thinks there ever was a God, so ..... hmmm...

 

[Beaudreaux]

I wanted to share this, from Jacob's brilliant recap of Serenity on Television without Pity:

The Operative pulls his huge sword, and Mal pulls...a tiny screwdriver. It's a tiny visual joke on the way to a vicious fight, this way and that on the broadcast platform, before the Operative stabs him (outside the frame, because if we saw him get stabbed as bad as he just did, we'd assume he was dead). "Do you know what your sin is, Mal?" Mal smiles. "Aw hell. I'm a fan of all seven." And Joss makes an interesting point here, which is that this is a literal response, and not a quip: "sin" as a concept is meaningless when the defining authority is as crazy -- and as demonstrably evil by the categorical imperative -- as the Operative and his bosses.

But even then, there's a higher point, which is that "sin," in the sense that the Operative means, and means to enforce here as he did in the beginning, is in itself the most sinful concept imaginable. Imposing their lack, through Pax, through legislation, through signing subjective moral concepts into law, circumvents God's plan entirely, and means taking on God's role and making of oneself an idol. It perverts religion and politics, and all of us love one more than the other. Without pride and the choices it presents, there can be no faith: no assertion that one's relationship with God, against all reason, is imperative and real. Without envy, there is no hope, no comparison, no competition, no dissatisfaction, no reason to try, to succeed. Without gluttony, in a world where greed is eliminated, there is no way to choose charity. Without lust, we all die, and without acknowledgement of lust's universality, there is no fortitude. Without anger, without the holy anger of the proletariat, of the people against the unlawful, there can be no justice. Without greed or sloth, there is no moderation, no temperance or prudence -- we are unable to look at ourselves critically and see long-term v. short-term effects. We stop growing them when the state mandates these lacks, takes away these choices: we all go to sleep. And we don't wake up. And Oceania keeps fighting, and the signal is silenced.

I think I just became a ******* Libertarian. And possibly a Christian.
​

It's pretty much my original point, just expressed far more beautifully.

OK, pulling analysis from one of the greatest movies ever?...That's impressive.

While the Alliance may have faltered in creating a world without sin, it is important to recognize that they are not all-powerful. I'm not talking about being able to perform logical contradictions like a square circle, but I do believe that an all-powerful being could create a world without sin, as do many Christians who believe in heaven.

Let's look at something you have never done. I don't know you personally, but let's say that you have never injected heroin into your veins and that you never will. Even though you COULD, you manage to live your live without doing so. It is not necessary for you to do heroin for you to realize the benefits of NOT doing it. Just as it is not necessary for people to sin in order for them to realize the benefits of not sinning.

 

[Storm]

OK, pulling analysis from one of the greatest movies ever?...That's impressive.

And suddenly I like you even more. Firefly rules!

While the Alliance may have faltered in creating a world without sin, it is important to recognize that they are not all-powerful. I'm not talking about being able to perform logical contradictions like a square circle, but I do believe that an all-powerful being could create a world without sin, as do many Christians who believe in heaven.

I posted it more for the second paragraph, where he starts listing the virtues that are only possible if sin exists. EDIT: I grant that the Alliance's failure is an inadequate comparison to an omnimax God.

Let's look at something you have never done. I don't know you personally, but let's say that you have never injected heroin into your veins and that you never will. Even though you COULD, you manage to live your live without doing so. It is not necessary for you to do heroin for you to realize the benefits of NOT doing it. Just as it is not necessary for people to sin in order for them to realize the benefits of not sinning.

Oh, absolutely. But my point is that sin isn't that black-and-white. The existence of evil creates forms of goodness that we would never know otherwise. IOW, God (as assumed in the OP) must have found the benefits worth the price. And I have to say, this pitiful mortal agrees.

ETA: To use your example, sin is more like using heroin as a pain reliever because you've got nothing else. You risk addiction, but you have to.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I wouldn't say I'm a universalist in the strictest sense of the word, but pretty darned close. I could elaborate, but I'm not sure that an explanation would have much to do with the OP. I will, though, if you'd like.

IMHO, universalism is the only form of religion that comes close to solving the problem of evil and suffering, though I still think it falls short. Let's say that everyone, even Hitler, will receive eternal reward in the afterlife. I understand that such a reward makes our current suffering seem insignificant, but it does not remove it, not does it absolve God from doing a little torture before the eternal reward.

Well, I see free will as being more or less immaterial once the Final Judgment is over and everyone's eternal reward established. Since I was talking about those individuals to whom God will give the potential to progress forever, my response will be concerning them only. I believe that it is through their obedience and faithfulness in keeping God's commandments that they will be given this blessing, by the time they have reached the point where they could screw up, they'll be so far down the road towards their final destination (which is ultimately to become like their Father in Heaven) that it's highly improbable that they would suddenly decide to throw it all away. In theory I suppose they could, but given the kind of people they are, it's just not likely at all.

Unlikeliness does little in the vast expance of eternity. Eventually, if there is ANY chance they will falter, they will. One of my favorite lines that illustrates this is frrom a commedian who was talking about how many people there are in China. Roughly paraphrased:

You know in China there's a billion people, which is kind of depressing because even if you're a one-in-a-million kind of person that means there's a thousand guys just like you.

BIg numbers make the unlikely likely. Infinity makes the unlikely certain.