Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

If God is Good why is there so much suffering? My Answer!

Page 3 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

04 Dec 2013, 12:10 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
AngelRho wrote:

Something else to consider is that death is a preferable fate to being consigned eternally to a fallen creation in which there is no escape from suffering and decay. I've often heard friends say they couldn't imagine having children since that would mean consciously bringing a person into a world filled with turmoil and torment. Kenny Rogers said, "the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep". If God were unmerciful, we wouldn't even have that much.

So if a baby dies from cancer, how is that really any different or more cruel than letting someone live just long enough to get married, have a baby on the way, enter the military to support his family, only to get hit by an IED and never get to see his son? I say if this world really is that terrible, then perhaps a dead infant is lucky to have never known the cruelties of the mature world and is blessed.

Those AngelRho opinions in full:

1) Baby cancer fine
2) Abortion evil


Exactly. He even confirmed it again just now.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

04 Dec 2013, 12:13 pm

AngelRho wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
AngelRho wrote:

Something else to consider is that death is a preferable fate to being consigned eternally to a fallen creation in which there is no escape from suffering and decay. I've often heard friends say they couldn't imagine having children since that would mean consciously bringing a person into a world filled with turmoil and torment. Kenny Rogers said, "the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep". If God were unmerciful, we wouldn't even have that much.

So if a baby dies from cancer, how is that really any different or more cruel than letting someone live just long enough to get married, have a baby on the way, enter the military to support his family, only to get hit by an IED and never get to see his son? I say if this world really is that terrible, then perhaps a dead infant is lucky to have never known the cruelties of the mature world and is blessed.

Those AngelRho opinions in full:

1) Baby cancer fine
2) Abortion evil

Um, not really.

One is within a person's ability to control it (the conscious decision to kill a baby). The other is generally not (I didn't CHOOSE to give my baby cancer, it was beyond my control).

Neither one is a "good" thing.

Now, if a baby has easily treatable cancer and parents decide to let the baby die anyway, I have a HUGE issue with that. If God allows a baby to have incurable cancer, then that life is in God's hands. With abortion, we at least have a choice.


Yet you don't have an issue with God giving the baby cancer. Why the double standards?

As far as I'm concerned, either baby cancer is bad or it's not.



American
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 285

05 Dec 2013, 12:32 am

AspE wrote:
azaam wrote:

The term of every human expires according the will of Allah. Cancer is one of the way Allah chooses to end the life of that person.

Then he is evil and not worthy of worship.


"He" is also not worthy of worship because "he" did nothing to earn his station in life, if you will. By virtue of being all powerful, creating the whole universe must have taken no effort at all. The whole God belief is riddled with logical problems.



tern
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2013
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 226
Location: east-central Scotland

05 Dec 2013, 11:23 am

I have a fourth solution, Aomnitheism. Which is, theism that agrees with atheism about omnipotence.

That there is no such thing as magic, and the universal spirit can't do physically impossible things any more than we can. Hence, that omnipotence is a myth wishfully attached to God in unfree eras when it was not safe to say he could be limited and imperfect.

There is nothing in the idea of a universal causal spirit, an infinite total of all of us with a personal existence fitting in the modern range of the God concept, that innately requires this being to be omnipotent.

The Gnostics of the early Christain era were aomnitheists. It's not a new idea.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

05 Dec 2013, 12:03 pm

Definitely more plausible, but evidence is still lacking regardless.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

05 Dec 2013, 12:36 pm

God hates autistic people, thats fine i hate him too, so I wished him away with the dragon balls he doesnt exist anymore, serves him right for hating on us autistics.


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


FabianV
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 78
Location: Halifax, England

05 Dec 2013, 2:28 pm

@aspiotaku: but without kami, the dragon balls cease to exist! You scuppered my ambitions of immortality, damnit! :D



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

05 Dec 2013, 4:45 pm

Re aomnitheism this approach makes far more sense. But then anything which dilutes gods abilities and our status with regard to him makes far more sense than the current models. What aomnitheism does is the same as what knowledge is achieving, pushing the need for god further and further back, how long will it take for omni to be removed from its concept. It would appear to me that there is not a great chasm of divergence between deism and aomnitheism?


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


UndeadToaster
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 25 Sep 2013
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 340

05 Dec 2013, 5:27 pm

MCalavera wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
AngelRho wrote:

Something else to consider is that death is a preferable fate to being consigned eternally to a fallen creation in which there is no escape from suffering and decay. I've often heard friends say they couldn't imagine having children since that would mean consciously bringing a person into a world filled with turmoil and torment. Kenny Rogers said, "the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep". If God were unmerciful, we wouldn't even have that much.

So if a baby dies from cancer, how is that really any different or more cruel than letting someone live just long enough to get married, have a baby on the way, enter the military to support his family, only to get hit by an IED and never get to see his son? I say if this world really is that terrible, then perhaps a dead infant is lucky to have never known the cruelties of the mature world and is blessed.

Those AngelRho opinions in full:

1) Baby cancer fine
2) Abortion evil

Um, not really.

One is within a person's ability to control it (the conscious decision to kill a baby). The other is generally not (I didn't CHOOSE to give my baby cancer, it was beyond my control).

Neither one is a "good" thing.

Now, if a baby has easily treatable cancer and parents decide to let the baby die anyway, I have a HUGE issue with that. If God allows a baby to have incurable cancer, then that life is in God's hands. With abortion, we at least have a choice.


Yet you don't have an issue with God giving the baby cancer. Why the double standards?

As far as I'm concerned, either baby cancer is bad or it's not.

And as far as God is concerned baby cancer could be used for good. Death doesn't necessarily equal bad. Don't apply your morals to God.

American wrote:
AspE wrote:
azaam wrote:

The term of every human expires according the will of Allah. Cancer is one of the way Allah chooses to end the life of that person.

Then he is evil and not worthy of worship.


"He" is also not worthy of worship because "he" did nothing to earn his station in life, if you will. By virtue of being all powerful, creating the whole universe must have taken no effort at all. The whole God belief is riddled with logical problems.

You say that as if he can't exist without being worthy of worship. Or, if you go by Christianity, for example, certain things we do cause him considerable distress and yet he still loves us. That would make him worthy of worship, I suppose, regardless of how much effort it took him to create the universe.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

05 Dec 2013, 5:36 pm

UndeadToaster wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
AngelRho wrote:

Something else to consider is that death is a preferable fate to being consigned eternally to a fallen creation in which there is no escape from suffering and decay. I've often heard friends say they couldn't imagine having children since that would mean consciously bringing a person into a world filled with turmoil and torment. Kenny Rogers said, "the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep". If God were unmerciful, we wouldn't even have that much.

So if a baby dies from cancer, how is that really any different or more cruel than letting someone live just long enough to get married, have a baby on the way, enter the military to support his family, only to get hit by an IED and never get to see his son? I say if this world really is that terrible, then perhaps a dead infant is lucky to have never known the cruelties of the mature world and is blessed.

Those AngelRho opinions in full:

1) Baby cancer fine
2) Abortion evil

Um, not really.

One is within a person's ability to control it (the conscious decision to kill a baby). The other is generally not (I didn't CHOOSE to give my baby cancer, it was beyond my control).

Neither one is a "good" thing.

Now, if a baby has easily treatable cancer and parents decide to let the baby die anyway, I have a HUGE issue with that. If God allows a baby to have incurable cancer, then that life is in God's hands. With abortion, we at least have a choice.


Yet you don't have an issue with God giving the baby cancer. Why the double standards?

As far as I'm concerned, either baby cancer is bad or it's not.

And as far as God is concerned baby cancer could be used for good. Death doesn't necessarily equal bad. Don't apply your morals to God.


If God is perfectly good, then anything he allows should be nothing but good.

This means that baby cancer is not bad in God's eyes, but good.

I'd rather not worship such a God.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

05 Dec 2013, 6:00 pm

UndeadToaster wrote:
And as far as God is concerned baby cancer could be used for good. Death doesn't necessarily equal bad. Don't apply your morals to God.


Pray tell (teehee), what exactly qualifies you to speak on behalf of this 'God' character?



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

05 Dec 2013, 6:26 pm

UndeadToaster wrote:
And as far as God is concerned baby cancer could be used for good. Death doesn't necessarily equal bad. Don't apply your morals to God.

I thought our morals come from God. If he's not a moral leader, then when good is he?


Quote:
You say that as if he can't exist without being worthy of worship. Or, if you go by Christianity, for example, certain things we do cause him considerable distress and yet he still loves us. That would make him worthy of worship, I suppose, regardless of how much effort it took him to create the universe.

I'm saying a God that's not good, or one that constantly tests us with suffering, might exist, but why worship the guy?



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

05 Dec 2013, 6:49 pm

UndeadToaster wrote:
And as far as God is concerned baby cancer could be used for good. Death doesn't necessarily equal bad. Don't apply your morals to God.

And as far as God is concerned, famine, plague, AIDS, cholera and malaria could be used for good.



Last edited by GGPViper on 05 Dec 2013, 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

UndeadToaster
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 25 Sep 2013
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 340

05 Dec 2013, 6:49 pm

adifferentname wrote:
UndeadToaster wrote:
And as far as God is concerned baby cancer could be used for good. Death doesn't necessarily equal bad. Don't apply your morals to God.


Pray tell (teehee), what exactly qualifies you to speak on behalf of this 'God' character?

Nothing. Hence the "could"
AspE wrote:
UndeadToaster wrote:
And as far as God is concerned baby cancer could be used for good. Death doesn't necessarily equal bad. Don't apply your morals to God.

I thought our morals come from God. If he's not a moral leader, then when good is he?


Quote:
You say that as if he can't exist without being worthy of worship. Or, if you go by Christianity, for example, certain things we do cause him considerable distress and yet he still loves us. That would make him worthy of worship, I suppose, regardless of how much effort it took him to create the universe.

I'm saying a God that's not good, or one that constantly tests us with suffering, might exist, but why worship the guy?

Our morals wouldn't necessarily come from God. He would define right and wrong, but people could make up their own morals that may or may not be in accordance with God's.

And yeah, maybe in regards to the last thing.
MCalavera wrote:
If God is perfectly good, then anything he allows should be nothing but good.

This means that baby cancer is not bad in God's eyes, but good.

I'd rather not worship such a God.

Baby cancer could be bad in God's eyes, but he could still use it to achieve a good purpose. But God gets to define morality I would think. In his eyes everything he does could be good. But I guess this discussion doesn't make sense unless we use the definition accepted by our society... In which case you may be right that he should allow nothing but good.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

05 Dec 2013, 10:05 pm

It's not just "should". He, by his own goodness, could only do good, logically speaking. So if he allows baby cancer to occur, it would be considered good.

But it doesn't mean it doesn't conflict with my own personal standards of what good is supposed to be about.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

05 Dec 2013, 10:24 pm

Re aomnitheism this approach makes far more sense. But then anything which dilutes gods abilities and our status with regard to him makes far more sense than the current models. What aomnitheism does is the same as what knowledge is achieving, pushing the need for god further and further back, how long will it take for omni to be removed from its concept.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx