Does God cause suffering??

People who die innocent (such as children), are given the possibility of being brought back to life in a future society governed directly by God and his kingdom.

thats nice... a possibility?

like i stated many times already, why create a test that tests some more than others... remember the human stage of the souls existance seems to be for nothing other than to test the souls worthiness to go to heaven?

why not skip the whole human/earth part and just test the souls?

Would you please not continue to cry "God kills innocents!" and then completely ignore all the responses?

would you please not continue to ask for that, as the responses are not being ignored, they are just ignorant of the truth, focusing on religious oddyesy as opposed to factual occurances of what really happens to those human beings.
 
The point is, whether you believe it or not, there is a religious justification for it.

When you are made aware of the justification, and then dismiss it, and try to continue along as tho there is none, you aren't presenting an argument anymore, you're simply denouncing everything you hear as wrong.
 
would you please not continue to ask for that, as the responses are not being ignored, they are just ignorant of the truth, focusing on religious oddyesy as opposed to factual occurances of what really happens to those human beings.

So you're saying "God can't bring people to life... I've never seen him do it, ergo there is no evidence for it, ergo it is wrong."

Nice.
 
The point is, whether you believe it or not, there is a religious justification for it.

well no, lets be honest SOMEONE somewhere thought that there might have been religious justification for murder.

or they simply couldnt understand why there was, for instance, a big flood (natural disaster) and then made up that it was an act of god, to make their god seem even more powerful than the competing gods?

or is the volcanic ash now a function of god saying that we should cut down on air travel?
 
So you're saying "God can't bring people to life... I've never seen him do it, ergo there is no evidence for it, ergo it is wrong."

Nice.

no i have read that god purposely caused the suffering of those in the bible. but most christians dont want to hear this, hence the quote in my post...

i think once you have read the bible, and if you conclude that you believe in god that he must take some responsibility for some human suffering.

if you do not agree then i doubt your objective comprehension skills!
 
I gave you an answer to this at least twice.

People who die innocent (such as children), are given the possibility of being brought back to life in a future society governed directly by God and his kingdom.

Still completely immaterial to the question "Does God cause suffering?" Not to mention it is only a possibility and also is open to an awful lot of interpretation.

You don't have to believe it, but you do have to accept that this is what Christians believe.

Actually, I don't. Because I happen to know a fair few Christians (inlcuding my wife) who do not believe this. I really would suggest that you don't take your interpretation of Christianity to be the only one or the only correct one.

Yes, innocents have died, but God has the power to right all injustices that have ever been committed in the entire history of the world.

Would you please not continue to cry "God kills innocents!" and then completely ignore all the responses?


Well, until he actually goes and does right all the injustices then I am afraid the charge does still stand. God has killed innocents and so far he hasn't resurrected them. Nasty man!

I see, I was looking at "God" in a broader sense and not in the personifcation deity of the Abrahamic religions.

To be honest if you are trying to ask the question posed in the wider sense the only real answer is "I have absolutely no idea". :)
 
Don't be absurb, they are far too busy ramming other things down children's throats to let religion get in the way.

:P

+1 haha

But seriously i went to a non Christian school and did RE purely because i found it interesting. I am far from religious, i do not believe in God but can respect other peoples belief's in him, although i cannot understand anyone's belief's in the so called 'Magical Jew' but enough of that back to my point...I was taught all kinds of beliefs and religious practices granted for the exams all i needed to know was to re-site stories from bits of both testaments and Christian beliefs one been 'if a camel can fit through the eye of a needle then any man can get into the kingdom of god' silly i know because id love to see a Camel try that, but it really is the simplest exam to pass...
Again i strayed from my point, what i was getting at is that i went to a non religious school and was taught many religions but the exams only consisted of Christian events.....My girlfriend went to a Christian school and she was taught nothing but Christianity which imo swayed her beliefs to that which the school taught.
If or when i have kids the only reason i would not want them attending a Christian school is the fact i would like them to have their own free wil to make their own choices on what religion if any they would like to follow.
I know with my current partner this will cause issues ha but still the Australians have it right in not preaching in public schools! everyone should be given free will and schools preaching and teaching there one and only beliefs is wrong as it leads children to believe only what they teach...

imo of course.
 
no i have read that god purposely caused the suffering of those in the bible.

Fine, then.

In the interest of balance, the following needs to be stated.

The suffering was punishment for acting against God.
The people knew ahead of time that punishment was likely/certain.
The punishment was avoidable.
The punishment was a result of actions taken wilfully (as opposed to having no choice).

We cause our children suffering when we discipline them. We smack them, put them on the naughty step, take away their toys, send them to bed, etc.

I guess we're all bad people for causing suffering to children.

You see, taking things out of context can make them absurd.
 
if you give people free will, why punish them for not doing what you wanted to begin with?

isnt the point of free will to allow people do do as they will?

The suffering was punishment for acting against God.

but like i said, the religion was not a worldwide universal, nor were these rules. what happened to man B on the other side of the planet (or river) who did not grow up with the same ruleset being handed down? he would have been blindly ignorant to the wrongs he did.

how can you repent without knowing what you have done wrong? they were punished for something they did not know, did not even realise was punishable, let alone be able to repent in time...

blanket punishments to random races of people dont make much sense really for the mistakes of the few.. do they?!

like i keep saying making souls do a human turn before allowing them into heaven is not a fair test. so why even bother to conduct the test?
 

Can't blame you for not quoting all of it, but I think you got the useful bits down. I hope you don't mind if I show the same restraint :)

I would suggest that this concept of 'god' is so ill defined that for me to give any real argument that god 'is provable' is pretty much impossible. The grounds you seem to be working on are "if there is a god which created the universe, then..."

Having reread my mini-essay of a post, it seems that all my argument really amounts to is "we would know god exists if he showed us that he exists" (I'm defaulting to male gender here). Not very strong, but given those grounds is about all I can really say.

What I've tried to do is take the thought process into real examples. I mean it's obvious that if you should declare that there is a god that has some supernatural influence on the events which occur in the universe, then I totally take your point. I agree all the way that there's no way I can know if such a god's actions are indeed observable, knowable or therefore testable.

But I could say that about anything. I could suggest that we exist in a universe with imperceivable dimensions lying almost parallel to ours, but with the most subtle of intersections. Therein may lie an entirely different cosmos. Perhaps this is a bad example because a physicist may come along and suggest an ingenious method for testing, but I hope we can take this as an analogy for something that I can't confirm nor disprove.

Happily though, that's not..actually a very useful thing to talk about. Also happily, the religions I know of are not based around such a concept. I would be very interested to know if there is a religion that says "there is a god, we've never actually been able to perceive this god, but he created the universe and guides the events therein". Yes I took the Abrahamic religions as examples, because ultimately they're the ones I have some fragments of knowledge about.

I would like to take a moment to discuss the point about likelihood and proof. If we accept the idea that something being likely does not lead to proof, then quite simply nothing is provable. This is true, and perfectly fine, but it is out of this that hypothesis testing is born. I talked earlier in the thread about degrees of certainty, and a point at which we establish that a hypothesis is 'taken' or 'rejected'. That doesnt make it true or false, but it allows a measure of probability given the evidence. But I'm on a tangent again, aren't I. What I'm trying to get that is religious artifacts must be allowed the same scrutiny in proporting or challenging the faith in 'god' as any other artifact that may challenge the explanations we hold about the world around us.

Anyway, if you can show me a religious faith that believes in some set of deities, one or many, that is not based on some sort of explicit documented interaction with humanity, then I will concede the point in that specific case. Otherwise, we're talking about tangible evidence which turns it from hypothetical into observable evidence.

I'm not really sure how I'd class myself. I am an agnostic insofar as I 'believe in' observation and refined explanation as a continuously developing way to explore the world around us. I don't outright reject people's religious beliefs, but in general I don't see any tangible merit to them.

One of my other big problems is this concept of free will. Yes we could use the argument that 'free will transcends human understanding', but it's the same as this god question. I simply cannot accept as a given that there's anything beyond the potential for human understanding, because as soon as we take that as such, then we lose the drive to learn everything there possibly is to know about the universe, and develop into a better species for it. I suppose you can call that faith (i'd disagree), but until someone can show me that there's a real limit then I'll happily go on wanting to learn more about this wonderful world we live in.

I think I have to really start shortening these posts, I seem to go on and on discussing and presenting what's actually a rather simple argument :p
 
Last edited:
What's so baffling about free will?

If you had the power to create your perfect girlfriend/wife, would you give her freewill (and the possibility of her leaving you), or would you not give her freewill, and face the uncertainty that she only stays with you because she has no choice?

The latter would be a deeply unsatisfactory relationship, I would think.
 
Alex74: It's interesting to hear your thoughts on the matter, I don't think we're all that far away in how we're viewing most of the important points or at least it appears that we're willing to consider that there may not be absolutes.

You're right the concept of god is ill-defined, in some ways that's deliberate on my part as I'm speaking of a generic god rather than a specific god such as the Abrahamic God. One area where I think we differ is that I'm fairly happy to ascribe things that I cannot influence (possibly even comprehend) and which have no discernable influence on my life as unimportant except for the purposes of occasional debates.

For the purposes of the majority of life then I'd agree likelihoods and probability are important - once you've got a near certainty of an event occuring then it may almost be considered a fait accompli but I view religion or indeed questions of a metaphysical nature slightly differently. In those instances I'm more willing to consider the scarcely plausible as being suitable for people to believe in - I don't have to share their belief but if their weird and wonderful beliefs don't harm anyone else unduly then I see no reason to attempt to disabuse them of it.

As for free will, I wish you good luck in understanding it. I don't hold any particularly strong thoughts on the matter.
 
Why Does God Allow Suffering?

Has God caused the suffering in the world?

What issue was raised in the garden of Eden?

How will God undo the effects of human suffering?

These are all answered here ... http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_11.htm

You could do a lot worse than to ask a Jehovah's Witness what they believe. They're not a bunch of nutters, I have found, but very decent people.

And they can at least tell you what's in the Bible, almost word for word, on any topic you care to ask about. I've grilled them about several topics, and been enlightened quite a bit on points I didn't understand before.

And they come to you, and it's free :p
 
It's interesting to hear your thoughts on the matter, I don't think we're all that far away in how we're viewing most of the important points or at least it appears that we're willing to consider that there may not be absolutes...

Likewise, I have enjoyed the discourse :).

I'm no extremist anti-religious type, and i have no agenda or desire to take people's beliefs away from them. I appreciate people's beliefs and respect you for open mindedness in regard to plausibility.

I think we are agreed on most counts. And as you say, these points which have no "discernable influence" end up effectively being little more than an intellectual intrigue. We do seem to diverge on this idea of the 'metaphysical', though. While as you say I'm not willing to rule anything out, I suppose I lack..something..which would allow me to accept knowledge of any sort of 'metaphysical' nature without something really tangible for me to work and argue with.

I shelved the thought process on free will a few years ago, brought it up as a comparative example. But..well, the topic itself is for a different thread :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom