God, and the problem of suffering.

[pureinheart]

Very good question.

 

While I don't exactly spend the hours wondering or concerning myself with the beliefs of others, I would say faith in God is obscene. If there is a reason it "bothers" me, that would be it. Not because of "insecurity" as another poster claimed. In fact, believing in any version of a fable because you're worried about death or trying to make sense of a senseless world could also be characterized as insecurity.

 

It's obscene due to the very issues I raised in the OP. When you believe a God is "in control" of everything, you're turning your back on your fellow man, whether you realize that or not. Given the misery inflicted on millions, every day, all over the world - given all that this "God" does NOT accomplish - faith in God is obscene.

 

This is odd as the majority of atheists I know are some of the most selfish people on the planet. Typically it's Christians out there doing the 'dirty work' (as I've heard atheists say in the past). It's people of faith going out into the 'mission fields'. I've never heard of an atheist group doing this, though I'm sure there is at least one.

[NGC1300]

So the thousands of missionaries and Christian ministries that are spread throughout the most blighted areas of the world, have turned their backs on their fellow man (due to their belief in God), meanwhile, you, due to your convictions, are actually heading out on a humanitarian trip this weekend to help people in third world countries.

 

You do have to see the irony, though, that God couldn't help those people, only real-life people can. Some do it in the name of God, others just do it out compassion (not that they're mutually exclusive).

 

I suppose, you could argue, God created those people to help others, but then again one may presume a God has the capacity to create people that wouldn't suffer in the first place.

[TheFinalWord]

Case study: Roberta Edwards, a missionary in Haiti was killed last week on a mission trip.

 

Her resume:

 

• Director at SonLight Children's home in Port-au-Prince, Haiti
  
• Called "Mom" by 20 foster children.
  
• Ran a nutritional center in Haiti, feeding 160 children two meals a day, five days a week.
  

"She would accomplish things you just didn't think could be accomplished out of sheer will," Robertson said. "She had faith that God would help her. She would start into things that she didn't know how she was going to accomplish, but she trusted that the Lord would provide."

 

The church had this to say about her murder:

 

"Our intent is to not let evil win, not to let Satan win, but continue the work of the kingdom of God because that is what this is. It's that kind of battle."

 

That sounds like a group of people that have turned their back on their fellow man due to faith in God.

[TheFinalWord]

You do have to see the irony, though, that God couldn't help those people, only real-life people can. Some do it in the name of God, others just do it out compassion (not that they're mutually exclusive).

 

I suppose, you could argue, God created those people to help others, but then again one may presume a God has the capacity to create people that wouldn't suffer in the first place.

 

I could give you many stories of God intervening to help missionaries. I doubt I could prove it to you over the Internet. I challenge you, get out in the mission field. Do a missions trip with a church in a third world country for at least 6 weeks. I guarantee you will see at least one miracle.

[BC1980]

1) God is unaware of, or unable to stop suffering. Therefore he is impotent.

2) God is aware of the suffering, and could stop it, but chooses not to. Therefore he is evil.

3) God is imaginary.

 

Please take your pick.

 

I tend to believe that God does not interfere in our daily lives. The main reason I feel that way is because I work in health care. I always get very uncomfortable when people pray for healing, but I realize that they are using that prayer as a coping mechanism. When faced with an illness that we cannot control, people need to feel that they can control something or that they can positively affect the outcome. They want to feel useful in some way. I do not judge anyone who wants to pray for healing, but I do not do so myself. I also have my coping mechanisms that are based in emotional needs and not logic. So I am in no place to judge another for what they do to get through life.

 

I think that there is one big flaw in number 2. You assume that God is evil because he does not interfere. That conclusion can be easily argued away with the idea that we are not privy to God's plan to turn bad into good. I'm not saying I believe that, but I'm saying that is the line of argument used against that idea.

 

Anyway, religious beliefs are an opinion. Most of us hold proof of our religion to a much lower standard than we would anything else. I've read Christian apologetics for years looking for the smoking gun and still haven't found it. I want to believe quite badly, but I can't make myself believe something that my heart doesn't. I have accepted the fact that go to church for community and really wish that it's all true. Of course, none of it makes any logical sense. I've started to wonder to what extent we actually control what we believe.

[TaraMaiden2]

The idea that if we assert yourselves we will never suffer?

 

I suppose it depends on one's personal intended definition of 'assert' (as opposed to the strict etymological lexiconical definition....)

 

But let us assume (as in algebra - algebra always 'assumes x = 7 and y = -3....) that 'assert' here, means to manifest confidently, to rise above... to confront and challenge....

That is how I took her meaning...

 

So if we then alter the original phrase given by casey.lives into

 

suffering results from not accepting your losses or not fighting back. When you confidently rise above, confront or challenge [suffering], you don't suffer.

 

Would that be a more agreeable assertion?

[TaraMaiden2]

Originally Posted by NGC1300

1) God is unaware of, or unable to stop suffering. Therefore he is impotent.

2) God is aware of the suffering, and could stop it, but chooses not to. Therefore he is evil.

3) God is imaginary.

 

Please take your pick.

 

Couldn't number 2 be said of ANY human who does the same...?

 

Originally Posted by BC1980

Okay, I'll play devil's advocate here. There has been so much harm done in the name of religion that I think it does become "our" business to a certain extent. When I think of issues like women's rights, LGBT rights, and colonialism (just to name a few), I think of all the harm religion has caused. So I do think that as a global community, another person's beliefs do become our business when they use that belief to wield power and discriminate against others

 

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

 

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

 

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

 

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

MARTIN NIEMÖLLER

[deadelvis]

Here's another option for you. I'll refrain from saying "God" because it's such a loaded word, and instead I'll say "higher intelligence" so it encompasses a broader scope and doesn't presume one belief system over the other.

 

So here's another scenario for you. What if the higher intelligence isn't a benevolent shepherd tending to the flock, but rather a farmer who runs a slaughterhouse? When you look at the way humans treat animals on this planet, (because we consider ourselves to be more intelligent than them) what makes you think a more intelligent life form wouldn't look at us the same way? Why do we assume a higher intelligence would treat us like a beloved pet, rather than merely livestock?

[Robert]

Folks,

 

I deleted over 50 unproductive and off-topic posts in this thread. You are all reminded that the topic is "God, and the problem of suffering."

 

On-topic posts will be allowed to continue. Veer off-topic and you may find your posting privileges revoked.

 

~6

 

Edited to add this reminder that was pinned at the top of the sub-forum many years ago. http://www.loveshack.org/forums/mind-body-soul/spirituality-religious-beliefs/192871-announcement

Edited October 23, 2015 by Robert
re-opened after review

[NGC1300]

Here's another option for you. I'll refrain from saying "God" because it's such a loaded word, and instead I'll say "higher intelligence" so it encompasses a broader scope and doesn't presume one belief system over the other.

 

So here's another scenario for you. What if the higher intelligence isn't a benevolent shepherd tending to the flock, but rather a farmer who runs a slaughterhouse? When you look at the way humans treat animals on this planet, (because we consider ourselves to be more intelligent than them) what makes you think a more intelligent life form wouldn't look at us the same way? Why do we assume a higher intelligence would treat us like a beloved pet, rather than merely livestock?

 

Excellent point.

 

It's no coincidence that humans have conceptualized this idea of God's righteousness, and everlasting life. If you're going to have make-believe answers, they are certain to be exactly the ones you want.

 

In reality, there is no more evidence for this righteous God than there is for a God that is using entire planets as concentration camps.

 

Oh but that sounds crazy and absurd? Maybe, but no more so than a God having to save mankind from the plight he himself engineered, by sending his 'son' down to Earth on a suicide mission.

[Tayla]

I tend to believe that God does not interfere in our daily lives. The main reason I feel that way is because I work in health care. I always get very uncomfortable when people pray for healing, but I realize that they are using that prayer as a coping mechanism. When faced with an illness that we cannot control, people need to feel that they can control something or that they can positively affect the outcome. They want to feel useful in some way. I do not judge anyone who wants to pray for healing, but I do not do so myself. I also have my coping mechanisms that are based in emotional needs and not logic. So I am in no place to judge another for what they do to get through life.

.

 

I can respect this medical view. Many a journal has shown though that prayer or meditation has shown to affect the patient in positive ways. I do not think that prayer should substitute for necessary medical procedures... it can though be a source to keep the patient in a more positive mindset...

I think its a double edge sword though , as the utter disappointment when the patient passes despite the prayers and patients fight to survive. I for one to this day as a believer in the energy of faith, never got angry at this deity, for my mothers departure. Why get angry ??? it does nothing for the loss and the grief... the deity if it exist welcomed the soul home... and I can ask nothing more ... because yes I do believe spiritually that energy goes somewhere..

The Op still has me wondering on some scenarios ... if i stay in denial, then sure suffering need not exist... Yet After holding the hand of a patient... Their pain and acknowledgement of the suffering.. led to empathy and compassion... Not sure how that measures into this grand plan.. just know that while I exist.. best to serve up kindness... and that I do have a wee bit of empowerment to perform.

[BC1980]

I can respect this medical view. Many a journal has shown though that prayer or meditation has shown to affect the patient in positive ways. I do not think that prayer should substitute for necessary medical procedures... it can though be a source to keep the patient in a more positive mindset...

 

I think prayer or meditation can be a very powerful coping mechanism, but I don't feel that either of those things can heal illness. Until I began working in the medical profession, I never thought about the problem of God and suffering in any deep, meaningful way. Once I began to see concrete examples of tremendous suffering, I started to seriously question the purpose and existence of God.

 

The only conclusion that makes any sense to me is that God does not directly involve himself in our daily lives. A friend of mine feels that that price of free will is that God will not involve himself in our lives. For me, I guess that idea makes the most sense. For the most part, I have been able to reconcile my religious beliefs with that opinion. It really doesn't matter if my opinion is correct because there is no way or knowing if I am correct. It only matters that I can live with it.

 

I think that ascribing healing or suffering to God is simply a way for us to order/understand the chaos of this world. We want answers, and we prefer the black and white variety. So our idea of God continually evolves with our life experiences. Our idea of God is very personal and very dependent on our experiences. After working in the medical profession, it was necessary for my idea of God and suffering to evolve, and I chose an idea that I could make peace with. I realized that it really doesn't matter if my opinion is correct. What matter is that I can live with it. So I try not to judge another person's ideas on God and suffering because I know as little as they do.

Edited October 24, 2015 by BC1980

[TheFinalWord]

If you're going to have make-believe answers, they are certain to be exactly the ones you want.

 

Your views make more sense to me now.

 

What do your make-believe answers say about you?

 

So far, you think your opinions are superior to others and its okay to mock people. Christianity says to love your enemies.

 

You claim faith results in people turning their backs on mankind: yet, you yourself are not doing anything to help so your worldview doesn't do any better. Christianity has thousands of missionaries and charities around the world.

 

Earth is like a concentration camp (meanwhile you have internet access; based on developments by a Christian, Charles Baggage, a father of the computer, resulting in your concentration camp first world problems).

[NGC1300]

Your views make more sense to me now.

 

What do your make-believe answers say about you?

 

So far, you think your opinions are superior to others and its okay to mock people. Christianity says to love your enemies.

 

You claim faith results in people turning their backs on mankind: yet, you yourself are not doing anything to help so your worldview doesn't do any better. Christianity has thousands of missionaries and charities around the world.

 

Earth is like a concentration camp (meanwhile you have internet access; based on developments by a Christian, Charles Baggage, a father of the computer, resulting in your concentration camp first world problems).

 

 

I'm certain you can pull some moral philosophy out of the doctrines. I'm also certain many religious people, Christian or otherwise, help others and contribute to society. But none of that means any of their ideas about God or eternal life is true.

 

Just like Muslims invented algebra; that doesn't mean any of its teachings are true.

 

Hindus invented the decimal numeral system. That doesn't mean Hinduism is true.

 

In any event, you seem to be forgetting that even if one of the world's countless religions was true, all the rest would still be imaginary or make-believe, so stating this simple fact is not a matter of mockery; it's an absolute fact.

Edited October 24, 2015 by NGC1300

[TheFinalWord]

In any event, you seem to be forgetting that even if one of the world's countless religions was true, all the rest would still be imaginary or make-believe, so stating this simple fact is not a matter of mockery; it's an absolute fact.

 

Where did I say any of the teachings were true because of their discoveries?

 

I can also appreciate the contributions those religions have made, even if I disagree with them. You seem unable to do that. By mockery I mean making ridiculous strawman arguments (e.g. concentration camps), asserting that they are somehow logical comparisons, and then ridiculing the strawman. There is a rule in internet debates called Godwin's Law that when someone brings up Nazism in general (Hitler, concentration camps, etc.) the discussion is over and that person automatically forfeits.

Edited October 25, 2015 by TheFinalWord

[autumnnight]

Mockery has more to do with HOW one chooses to communicate rather than WHAT they communicate. It is possible for an emotionally intelligent person to disbelieve and even question those who DO believe without mocking.

[NGC1300]

Where did I say any of the teachings were true because of their discoveries?

 

I can also appreciate the contributions those religions have made, even if I disagree with them. You seem unable to do that. By mockery I mean making ridiculous strawman arguments (e.g. concentration camps), asserting that they are somehow logical comparisons, and then ridiculing the strawman. There is a rule in internet debates called Godwin's Law that when someone brings up Nazism in general (Hitler, concentration camps, etc.) the discussion is over and that person automatically forfeits.

 

 

Actually the term "concentration camp" predates Nazi Germany by almost 200 years. It's not just a Nazi term.

 

Also, as a Christian, you must believe in Hell, so couldn't that be something of a 'concentration camp', if not worse than that?

[TheFinalWord]

Actually the term "concentration camp" predates Nazi Germany by almost 200 years. It's not just a Nazi term.

 

Also, as a Christian, you must believe in Hell, so couldn't that be something of a 'concentration camp', if not worse than that?

 

That's a bit like saying a derogatory racial term and saying some other language used it differently originally. We all know the default understanding is the Nazi concentration camps. But I'll take you at your word, if you meant it some other way. If you're going to use an extreme term outside of its conventional meaning you may want to clarify going forward.

 

Hell is based on your choice, people are forced into a concentration camp.

 

Not comparable.

[NGC1300]

That's a bit like saying a derogatory racial term and saying some other language used it differently originally. We all know the default understanding is the Nazi concentration camps. But I'll take you at your word, if you meant it some other way. If you're going to use a extreme term outside of its conventional meaning you may want to clarify.

 

Hell is based on your choice, people are forced into a concentration camp.

 

Not comparable.

 

You do understand "Godwin's Law" is just internet humor, right? You're not really using it to support your argument, are you?

 

Also, since a lot of people in this world aren't Christian, you must believe they will be going to Hell.

 

You say it's a choice, though. So is the Child born in India, indoctrinated with the wrong religion (through no fault of his own) also going to hell?

[TheFinalWord]

You do understand "Godwin's Law" is just internet humor, right? You're not really using it to support your argument, are you?

 

Also, since a lot of people in this world aren't Christian, you must believe they will be going to Hell.

 

You say it's a choice, though. So is the Child born in India, indoctrinated with the wrong religion (through no fault of his own) also going to hell?

 

Godwin's law may be humorous to you, but an actual logical fallacy underlies it. It's a fallacist's fallacy. Any serious philosophical discussion should attempt to avoid fallacious logic. Otherwise, there are no rules to work with and the discussion goes nowhere.

 

Have you ever seriously studied theology? I'm asking because what you seem to think are really devastating questions have been answered centuries ago by Christian scholars. If not, I recommend you start with C.S. Lewis. Here is an audio version of one of his most famous books, Mere Christianity. If you are going to vocally reject Christianity, you should at least know it's positions.

 

Going beyond that child in India that you care so much about (again you'll be conducting some humanitarian work this coming weekend right?), what about you?

 

Based on what you know, is going to hell (assuming it is real) based on your choice?

Edited October 25, 2015 by TheFinalWord

[bluefeather]

I wonder if any type of forum debate like this has ever ended with one side saying, "What you said makes some sense and I am going to add that to my view. Thank you."

[TheFinalWord]

I wonder if any type of forum debate like this has ever ended with one side saying, "What you said makes some sense and I am going to add that to my view. Thank you."

 

It has (at least imho)

 

See: The God or Not God Discussion thread further down the page...

[bluefeather]

It has (at least imho)

 

See: The God or Not God Discussion thread further down the page...

 

I don't see it. link?

[NGC1300]

Godwin's law may be humorous to you, but an actual logical fallacy underlies it. It's a fallacist's fallacy. Any serious philosophical discussion should attempt to avoid fallacious logic. Otherwise, there are no rules to work with and the discussion goes nowhere.

 

What fallacious logic then?

 

I said it's no more crazy to believe in an evil God than runs concentration camps, than it is to believe in a righteous God that sends incarnations of himself to Earth to be tortured and killed in a sacrificial manner. So by all means, please explain the fallacy you are seeing. They are both extreme and nonsensical propositions.

 

Have you ever seriously studied theology? I'm asking because what you seem to think are really devastating questions have been answered centuries ago by Christian scholars. If not, I recommend you start with C.S. Lewis. Here is an audio version of one of his most famous books, Mere Christianity. If you are going to vocally reject Christianity, you should at least know it's positions.

 

Going beyond that child in India that you care so much about (again you'll be conducting some humanitarian work this coming weekend right?), what about you?

 

Based on what you know, is going to hell (assuming it is real) based on your choice?

 

The Bible says nonbelievers go to hell. It's cut and dried. Pointing to your Christian apologists as a means of defending Christianity isn't very convincing.

[TheFinalWord]

What fallacious logic then?

 

I said it's no more crazy to believe in an evil God than runs concentration camps, than it is to believe in a righteous God that sends incarnations of himself to Earth to be tortured and killed in a sacrificial manner. So by all means, please explain the fallacy you are seeing. They are both extreme and nonsensical propositions.

 

I don't know what you're talking about. You said Godwin's law is only internet humor. Godwin's law is based on a form of a fallacious argument. Either it is or isn't. Developing strawman arguments doesn't undermine the point.

 

The Bible says nonbelievers go to hell. It's cut and dried. Pointing to your Christian apologists as a means of defending Christianity isn't very convincing.

 

Where does it say that in the bible?

 

You didn't say a non-believer (someone that has heard, and rejects), you said someone that never heard (had no choice). I don't need to leave it to an apologist, the answer is provided in the book of Romans by the apostle Paul.

 

Again, stop with the scapegoat scenarios (that's part of the evil god strawman you don't seem to like) what about you? Is your going to hell based on your choice?