Serious Question To Christians

[Antlerman]

Ok, I was afraid of this. A few brief related side topics are fine, but let's not turn this into End3's topic here.

[florduh]

Let's just assume that God is real and he has all the power in the world to manipulate the universe as he is the creator and that we ARE his children. Also that we can become Gods, or we have his position, who knows maybe he decides that we athiests complain too much about him, and "Bruce Allmighty's" us with his powers.....

 

As a HUMAN father, I wouldn't dream of striking down my son or daughter with disease! I wouldn't gouge out their eyes blinding them. As a God I wouldn't let babies be born with spinal bifidida, or down syndrom, because if I were a human endowed with these God powers, I would cure all ailments and curses to Earth. Without having people believe who I am. I wouldn't care.

 

So, why would a HEAVENLY FATHER, decide to strike a kid with Spinal Bifidifa, or blindness, or Chron's disease, or Down Syndrom, or the dreaded Schizophrenia. or with God's powers, why doesn't he uncurse the world, with a magical wave of his hand, regardeless if people believe him or not?

 

If me a lowly Human, a sinner destined for hell as you Christians put it, can know the difference between compassion, and crultey. Why can't a God, who controls all, is all, and will be all for ever as the Alpha and Omega?

 

 

In reply to the OP, simple answer is HE WOULDN'T.

 

That fact alone should be enough to disprove the existence of such a "Heavenly Father."

[Guest end3]

AM,

 

Please read post 114, I posted "on topic"....I have given them an answer for the suffering correlation, and have been asked subsequent questions regarding....please let me know

[Kratos]

AM,

 

Whenever a topic like "how do you reconcile a loving Father with suffering in the world" is discussed, aren't the answers always going to be subjective? Now, if we were talking a hard science or mathematics, you might be able to objectively say that "this is truth". But, I do not see how the discussion of beliefs can ever be anything, but subjective.

 

Are my ideas of what is truth more valid than those of another? To me they are because they are my beliefs just like what you believe is more valid to you than what I believe.

 

Trying to elevate beliefs to facts never works and just frustrates both the one giving their belief and the one hearing them. Let's keep beliefs in one realm and facts in another and everything would seem to be easier when it comes to communicating on metaphysical subjects.

 

John

[Legion]

Trying to elevate beliefs to facts never works and just frustrates both the one giving their belief and the one hearing them. Let's keep beliefs in one realm and facts in another and everything would seem to be easier when it comes to communicating on metaphysical subjects.

John this strikes me as part of the problem. I have some beliefs that I hold as also being facts. They are very, very few in number and seeing as they are facts that are also believed I would say they count as genuine knowledge.

 

Have you ever heard of the philosophical term "epistemology" before? I first heard this word about 4 or 5 years ago. And it seems to me that many arguments arise as a result of people holding different epistemologies.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

[florduh]

AM,

 

Whenever a topic like "how do you reconcile a loving Father with suffering in the world" is discussed, aren't the answers always going to be subjective? Now, if we were talking a hard science or mathematics, you might be able to objectively say that "this is truth". But, I do not see how the discussion of beliefs can ever be anything, but subjective.

 

Are my ideas of what is truth more valid than those of another? To me they are because they are my beliefs just like what you believe is more valid to you than what I believe.

 

Trying to elevate beliefs to facts never works and just frustrates both the one giving their belief and the one hearing them. Let's keep beliefs in one realm and facts in another and everything would seem to be easier when it comes to communicating on metaphysical subjects.

 

John

 

If you believe extreme pain, suffering and death inflicted on children who never live to "benefit" from the trial is evidence of an all-powerful and loving god, then you entitled to that belief. After all, their misery is subjective. For some odd reason it doesn't make sense to me.

[Antlerman]

AM,

 

Whenever a topic like "how do you reconcile a loving Father with suffering in the world" is discussed, aren't the answers always going to be subjective? Now, if we were talking a hard science or mathematics, you might be able to objectively say that "this is truth". But, I do not see how the discussion of beliefs can ever be anything, but subjective.

Yes, but the context in which I brought up the subjective nature of your beliefs was in response to you talking about Bible study itself, upon which your whole theology surrounding your faith is based:

 

To me, Bible study is more art than science. I go with what God teaches me heart to heart. You can study the life out of anything, but that does not work for me. If it works for others that is fine too. If a passage speaks to me, I retain it and if not, I let it pass until later. I really do not care what means were used to write or assemble the Bible. I just know that it helps me through life and this is enough for me.

To which I responded:

With that in mind, since your interpretation is a heart-based one it is subjective and cannot be taken as speaking from you to the whole world at large, unless you consider yourself a prophet for mankind.

 

<snip>

 

And if so, then maybe that message is a part of the puzzle you don't understand and are remiss in thinking they are 'wrong' (such as considering all of us as "lost" or "non-spiritual").

 

My point about pure subjectivity and lack of objectivity isn't confided to the nature of this topic, but to everything you judge as truth about God and human beings. You're judgment of others as lost, nonspiritual, or sinful, is purely subjective.

 

Obviously we 'believe' our points of view to be true otherwise we would not believe them. But the difference is in this. I believe my points of view to be true conditionally, and that condition allows for the possibility of error in my judgment of another's position of belief. Having no 3rd party witness, no source of objectivity by which to come together to discuss a truth that exists outside subjective beliefs, means that for someone to presume their subjective truth is truer than another's is nothing short of arrogance.

 

If the Bible is taken as 'what speaks to you' being the truth for you, that's fine. But it can't be taken as the Gospel Truth for all humanity (pun intended). Do you agree or disagree with this?

 

Are my ideas of what is truth more valid than those of another? To me they are because they are my beliefs just like what you believe is more valid to you than what I believe.

Refer to what I said above about my understanding of the subjective nature of truth, and how I do not consider my views to be ultimately more valid than another's, if there is a lack of objective source that can mutually be evaluated by the different parties. What I believe, I believe because it makes sense to me; it 'works' for me.

 

Some of it is based on objectivity, some is not. That which isn't, I will not allow myself to worship those beliefs as necessarily truer than another's perspective, and thus become arrogant and limit the potentials of knowledge and understanding. And that which is based on objectivity, I will allow for more data or perspective to change my understanding of it.

 

Frankly, what I find marvelous about taking that position is that it really casts light on a greater truth that each perspective is more a way of looking at something, even if it appears to be a blatant contradiction. But there's no way to come to that place when we worship our own beliefs over the reverence of knowledge and wisdom.

 

Trying to elevate beliefs to facts never works and just frustrates both the one giving their belief and the one hearing them. Let's keep beliefs in one realm and facts in another and everything would seem to be easier when it comes to communicating on metaphysical subjects.

 

John

So then do you allow for "God" in your beliefs to be bigger than your beliefs and not preach that others are "wrong" if they don't believe as you do? And that your beliefs are simply choices that work for you; that they are not necessarily a truth that all are "missing the mark" of by not following them as you do?

[Kratos]

AM,

 

I actually do believe what you wrote is true as I many times state that what I believe today may not be what I believe tomorrow. My beliefs are always dynamic and not stagnant and this is one of the things that separate the spirit led life from religion. Religion is dead letter while being spirit led is life and peace as I see it.

 

How could anyone who believed in an eternal Hell for 20 years and now does not believe that think that now they could possibly have it all right? Obviously they cannot.

 

The difference I seem to have with many on this particular site is I still see value in expressing beliefs even if they are subjective and unprovable and constantly changing. Some seem to get very frustrated by those like me who have beliefs about God and what his plan is unless they can be catagorically proven in a way that none could disagree. That is just not going to happen, but I still like hearing what others believe and why. As well as bouncing my beliefs off others to see if they stick.

 

This all seems a valid part of being a member of the human community who all see through a glass darkly. It is a little funny to me because many atheists seem to only want religious beliefs if they are fundamentalist and unchangable. They seem to have a harder time with dynamic religious beliefs than those that do not change over time as we grow in Him and in life experiences.

 

John

[Neon Genesis]

That is just not going to happen, but I still like hearing what others believe and why. As well as bouncing my beliefs off others to see if they stick.

 

 

John

You mean besides we so-called "angry" atheists? Getting to know us, my ass.

[Grandpa Harley]

As well as bouncing my beliefs off others to see if they stick.

 

Thus, passive evangelism... QED

[par4dcourse]

Some seem to get very frustrated by those like me who have beliefs about God and what his plan is unless they can be catagorically proven in a way that none could disagree.

Since it's your spooks and flying men and talking serpants and otherworldly events, yes, any proof would be appreciated. </sarcasm>

[Neon Genesis]

I was having a debate earlier today with a Catholic friend of mine about this issue of suffering and why God won't heal amputees. During the debate, she linked me to this blog and an article: http://misterpengo.livejournal.com/111173.html I still fail to see how this blog justifies why God won't heal amputees. All it does is resort to the same old tired Christian cliches, "we don't know everything about God, so shut up and stop asking so many damn questions because we don't want you to figure out our religion is a lie and just trust that I know everything even though I just said we didn't know everything." Then the blog went off on some random whining about how all skeptics are unsatisfied whiners who wouldn't believe in a miracle if it hit them in the face, as if the blog somehow knows the minds of all skeptics while ignoring any of the actual issues. I fail to see how the article proves anything, too. http://health.howstuffworks.com/extracellular-matrix.htm

 

The scientists interviewed in the article even say it's highly unlikely that they'll be able to regrow whole limbs,

The researchers conducting the study say they don't expect to regrow the entire finger, but are hoping to regrow enough of a finger to allow for some utility. They don't believe it will regenerate bone, but nothing is for sure right now. That man in Cincinnati had only lost his finger tip, at the lower part of the nail; he hadn't lost the entire finger.

Even the article states that it wasn't even his whole finger lost, only part of it, so I fail to see how a tip regrowing suddenly = OMG, amputees are healed! Then the article goes off into random baseless speculations about future possibilities even though the scientists they just interviewed said it was highly unlikely that entire limbs could be regrown. Even if scientists somehow came up with a method of regrowing limbs through rigorous scientific research, I still don't see how it would qualify as an act of God since it would clearly be through the works of humanity. If it was a true miracle, then why would God need scientists to do his dirty work for him? And if this is an act of God, then it proves God is an ass who plays favorites by regrowing just a tip while ignoring children who have lost their entire legs and arms. To me this just feels like Christians are grasping for straws to prove their cause because they know they really don't have anything.

[Ouroboros]

...Then the blog went off on some random whining about how all skeptics are unsatisfied whiners who wouldn't believe in a miracle if it hit them in the face, as if the blog somehow knows the minds of all skeptics while ignoring any of the actual issues. ...

I wish they could give me (us) empirical evidence for that claim. So far, in my whole 30 years of belief, and the years before that, and the years after, so far, no miracle ever hit my face... so I honestly don't know if I would believe or not if it did. It's an assumption, until proven.

[Neon Genesis]

And I was thinking, if the aforementioned article actually was a miracle from God, why isn't it more publicized than it actually is? That was actually the first time I ever heard of it and as far as I'm aware, I don't know anyone else around me who knows about it. Surely if it was a miracle, wouldn't it be a lot bigger deal than it actually is? And why doesn't the article mention anything about it being a miracle at all? As far as I can tell, no where in the article does it suggest that anything supernatural occurred with that incident. Not even the guy himself claims it was a miracle. Wouldn't he be proclaiming to all the world that God healed him if it was? If anything though, doesn't that incident seem to imply that it's more evidence for human evolution than it does for a miracle of God?

[Guest Trevor]

I don't think that Christians have a clue what suffering is, as evidenced by Kratos post.

 

• Every year, around 200,000 women and children are victims of the slave trade in Southeast Asia, according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Trafficked children are being forced into sweatshops, brothels and begging on the streets.

 

• Between 100,000 and 150,000 Nepalese women and girls were sent in 2000 to India, where they were sexually exploited, reports the Committee on the Rights of the Child. The Bangladesh National Women Lawyers’ Association reports that more than 13,000 children were trafficked out of Bangladesh in the last five years.

 

• UNICEF estimates that there are 200,000 child slaves in West and Central Africa.

 

• In June 2000, Human Rights Watch denounced the practice of employing children in slave-like conditions on U.S. farms. About 50,000 women and children enter the United States each year to be used as slaves, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency admitted in April 2000.

 

• In Brazil, 40,000 children are sold every year to work on farms and as domestic servants. The traffickers lure girls with promises of jobs in restaurants in remote parts of the Amazon. Once there, they are forced to work in nightclubs and moved from one mining community to another.

 

• Girls from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are taken to Mexico and sold to brothels for $100 or $200 each, according to Casa Alianza, a human rights NGO that defends children in danger in the region. In Nicaragua, an average of one child disappears every three days.

 

 

I am sorry to say that I do not understand how these tragic events prove that God is unloving. Some of the previous arguments which spoke to disease and other "natural" phenomenon would be a better beginning to the discussion. You must understand that each of the issues you have mentioned here are created, perpetuated and perpetrated by humans. I believe that God gives humans the choices in life to do as they wish. It is not within the realm of the question that was asked to pull in man made problems in answer to it. I believe that the answer to the original question would be better answered in regards to the decisions that God has allowed man to make for several millenia now. We need to look back into antiquity to understand where many of these "natural" occurences began. I assume that there would be little argument as to how these diseases have occurred in a natural way from an evolutionary standpoint. Why then can we not see the possibility of the same being the case from the standpoint of a Christian looking at a loving God who grieves when nature takes its course?

I must respectfully disagree with the thoughts of the first Christian response to this question. The response was respectful which I appreciate but I do not see where the suffering of creation would have to have been included in the plan of God. I would agree with many of the responses to this thread that a loving God would not create a plan that includes suffering. However my belief system is wrapped around mistakes made by humans. I, for one, know that I make them on a regular basis. This does not mean either that God planned it this way or that a loving God should, by his nature, then decide to right all of the mistakes of all of the humans of the world so that they could escape the consequences of their own actions. And does this mean that I believe that people who are sick are in some way "sinning" or are going against God? Of course not. That would be an incredibly heartless and ridiculous thing to say. But what I am saying is that the existence of diseases and "abnormalities" and suffering in a world full of people making mistakes for generations does not, of necessity, negate the existence of a loving God.

I hope that this has made sense in response to the original question as well as to the one I replied to. Thanks.

[Neon Genesis]

I am sorry to say that I do not understand how these tragic events prove that God is unloving. Some of the previous arguments which spoke to disease and other "natural" phenomenon would be a better beginning to the discussion. You must understand that each of the issues you have mentioned here are created, perpetuated and perpetrated by humans. I believe that God gives humans the choices in life to do as they wish.

Where in the bible does it say anything about us having freewill? If God must allow evil to exist to give us freewill, then does that mean we have no freewill in heaven since evil does not exist there? If we can exist in heaven without evil while also having freewill, why couldn't have God made our lives like that? And what about natural disasters like hurricanes and tornadoes? God could have easily intervened and prevented Hurricane Katrina from happening without taking away anyone's freewill at all, but he didn't. If God didn't intervene to stop Hurricane Katrina even though he could without violating his laws of freewill, then how can you say God is loving? If God can't figure out a way to let freewill exist without evil, doesn't that prove God is not all-knowing and thus the god of the bible is false?

 

I assume that there would be little argument as to how these diseases have occurred in a natural way from an evolutionary standpoint. Why then can we not see the possibility of the same being the case from the standpoint of a Christian looking at a loving God who grieves when nature takes its course?

There is a significant difference between evolution and God. Evolution is a purely natural cause with no consciousness that does not claim to be perfect nor does it demand us to worship it with threats of eternal torture if we don't. God on the other hand does in spite of a lack of evidence. Evolution is not a perfect all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving god and is thus not expected to behave like one and meets all the expectations evolution should meet. Your god claims to be so but fails to meet the expectations that you claim we should have of it. You're trying to compare apples to oranges here. It's like saying why do people like apples not oranges, they're the same thing, when they aren't the same thing at all; they're two different fruits entirely.

 

 

I must respectfully disagree with the thoughts of the first Christian response to this question. The response was respectful which I appreciate but I do not see where the suffering of creation would have to have been included in the plan of God. I would agree with many of the responses to this thread that a loving God would not create a plan that includes suffering. However my belief system is wrapped around mistakes made by humans. I, for one, know that I make them on a regular basis. This does not mean either that God planned it this way or that a loving God should, by his nature, then decide to right all of the mistakes of all of the humans of the world so that they could escape the consequences of their own actions. And does this mean that I believe that people who are sick are in some way "sinning" or are going against God? Of course not. That would be an incredibly heartless and ridiculous thing to say. But what I am saying is that the existence of diseases and "abnormalities" and suffering in a world full of people making mistakes for generations does not, of necessity, negate the existence of a loving God.

I hope that this has made sense in response to the original question as well as to the one I replied to. Thanks.

But you just said earlier in your post that God allows suffering and evil to exist to give us freewill. Then you turn around and contradict yourself by saying suffering is not apart of God's plan. If God allows suffering to exist for some unexplainable reason God is powerless to do anything about, then that does mean suffering is apart of God's plan. Did Jesus not suffer on the cross as apart of God's plan of salvation? How can you say suffering is not apart of God's plans, yet the whole plan of salvation is centered around letting Jesus suffered?

[Deva]

I am sorry to say that I do not understand how these tragic events prove that God is unloving. Some of the previous arguments which spoke to disease and other "natural" phenomenon would be a better beginning to the discussion. You must understand that each of the issues you have mentioned here are created, perpetuated and perpetrated by humans. I believe that God gives humans the choices in life to do as they wish.

 

No. Who created humans? God. Who created this natural world, God. He is responsible. Totally. Yet, he is totally good and he loves us. The problem of evil is not so easily solved by so-called "free choice".

 

.. what I am saying is that the existence of diseases and "abnormalities" and suffering in a world full of people making mistakes for generations does not, of necessity, negate the existence of a loving God.

 

I guess that would depend on your definition of "loving."

[Badger]

If me a lowly Human, a sinner destined for hell as you Christians put it, can know the difference between compassion, and crultey. Why can't a God, who controls all, is all, and will be all for ever as the Alpha and Omega?

Serious question indeed, and definitely you're not the only one who has struggled with it. Honestly, I don't have answers. If God exists, as I believe, I'm sure he does know the difference between compassion and cruelty. The harder question is wheter or not God, who knows, really cares about what is happening down here. As a Christian I believe God has good reason to allow all this suffering, even if I can't say what exactly it is. He has compassion for us, more than we can imagine.

[centauri]

... You must understand that each of the issues you have mentioned here are created, perpetuated and perpetrated by humans.

 

From a Biblical standpoint, there is absolutely no reason to believe that this has to be the case.

The Bible God is a master of manipulation, tweaking events and people as he sees fit.

Making God a bystander to suffering, rather than an enabler and creator of it, sanitizes the issue rather nicely.

I've encountered many "New Age" gurus that also hold that position.

They steadfastly assert that there is no such thing as pain or suffering, it's actually unrecognized perfection.