• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should God have created a world without suffering?

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
And yet, you don't apply anything that you "learn". This isn't about agreeing and disagreeing, namely in that you immediately dismiss what we provide, and hide behind the writings of the Bahalluah.
I dismiss it because I consider it totally false. I don't have to have the writings of Baha'u'llah to know that, all I have to have are logical abilities and the Bible.
You just got through telling me that you don't read everything I say because you're not interested in it; that is ignoring what we say, do not lie.
I have read it over and over and over again. Why should I read it again? Moreover I consider it ungodly so I should not even read it at all. Why do you care what I believe anyway? I do not care what you believe.
Because you fail to acknowledge them, while then applying the exact same sources to support your own. You reject fact in favor of your opinions.
You have no facts, only opinions.
I have been posting to you long enough and I have acknowledged them and responded to them.
We have a lot of evidence, following your claims on god. Scriptural and tangible. The problem being here, blazer, is that you brazenly and blatantly ignore this evidence with one excuse or another. Either you don't believe it to be true, or "Look at this damaged person that makes art! Isn't it so pretty? God is good!"
No, all you have is your opinions about the scriptures and what they mean to you, that is not factual in any way.
You have no evidence that proves God is malevolent, all you have is a personal opinion based solely upon your interpretation of scriptures, what you believe they mean God is. The only other thing you have are your expectations of what God would do if God was benevolent. That's not evidence.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Pain is inevitable, I haven't invalidated the pain anyone undergoes. What I have found is that suffering because of pain is optional.
While I don't think there is anything special or unique about me. However, maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps I am capable of a mental calmness/peace others are not capable of. In which case I am sorry that you are unable to escape your suffering.

I find the man Job was challenged by Satan at Job 2:4-5.
And by way of extension we are also challenged.
Touch our ' flesh....' ( loose physical health ) and we would Not serve God.
Both Job and Jesus under adverse conditions proved Satan a liar and so can we.
Through Jesus coming thousand-year reign over Earth, earth's nations are promised coming healing at Revelation 22:2
Healing to the point that No one will say, " I am sick....." - Isaiah 33:24.
Even ' enemy death ' will be No more here on Earth - 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
I dismiss it because I consider it totally false.
Which is blatant hypocrisy, as you positively apply from the same sources and logic.

Moreover I consider it ungodly so I should not even read it at all.
Then again, why are you here?

Why do you care what I believe anyway?
I don't care what you believe, which is why I continue to present the facts to you. So long as you are here, discussing the Problem of Evil, you will find me presenting these facts and evidences over and over and over again. If you no longer wish to sully your spirituality by conversing with us or whatever, then leave. It's literally no skin off my back.

I have acknowledged them and responded to them.
No, you've dismissed them. That is not the same as functional refutation.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
No, he told them they would die. And then the Serpent told Eve that she wouldn't. Having no knowledge of right and wrong, they cannot be faulted.
Genesis 2:16 God says from every tree you many eat to satisfaction, then at Genesis 2:17 Adam is given the education as to why Not eat from one tree, the tree of knowledge of good and bad because eating from it would cause his death.
Yes, later sinner liar Satan told Eve she would Not die at Genesis 3:4.
Eve broke the known law (Genesis 3:2-3) and Eve is Not with us today because Eve died.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Why would it be good? I don't see any benefits from it. Compared to living in a "situation" where suffering is not required..............................
Again, could you imagine living in the world we do now, exactly the same. But where animals didn't suffer? Now could you imagine a world where neither animals or humans suffered?........
Isaiah paints a beautiful vivid word picture for us when neither man nor animals suffer at Isaiah 35th chapter.
Also at Isaiah 11:6-9 neither man nor animal will suffer. See also Isaiah 65:25 because none will cause harm.
No suffering on Earth once Jesus begins his thousand-year reign over Earth - 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Which is blatant hypocrisy, as you positively apply from the same sources and logic.

I don't care what you believe, which is why I continue to present the facts to you. So long as you are here, discussing the Problem of Evil, you will find me presenting these facts and evidences over and over and over again. If you no longer wish to sully your spirituality by conversing with us or whatever, then leave. It's literally no skin off my back.

No, you've dismissed them. That is not the same as functional refutation.
I have no interest in refuting you and I can dismiss whatever I want to dismiss.
You can continue to discuss the PoE if you want to, but you will have to find another believer to post to.
Then again, why are you here?
Not to post to you or read any more of your posts. I have many other posts I have to answer.

I just asked you to leave me alone on the other thread. I said:

I do not want to discuss any theological issues with you, do you understand?
I would prefer that you do not post to me anymore, because there is nothing more to be said.
I will not post to you again either and that will take care of the problem.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
Then you go on and you get to those other people waiting on more of the same, blazer. You said you were done replying to me in the other thread, and yet here you are telling me the same thing twice. No change there, huh?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Then you go on and you get to those other people waiting on more of the same, blazer. You said you were done replying to me in the other thread, and yet here you are telling me the same thing twice. No change there, huh?
I just wanted to set the record straight on both threads in case there are any more problems down the line.

Happy Trails. :)
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If a man human says God is benevolent then he says he is benevolent.

Hence men owned reasons to quote the God of science thought of by men was not benevolent.

Basic common sense humans living present own all arguments.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Eve could not have broken the law, nor Adam, because they had no concept of good and evil. It is not until Genesis 3:7 that they realize they did "wrong".
Knowing wrong and feeling the consequences of wrong doing is Not the same as Not knowing.(Genesis 2:17)
At Genesis 3:7 their conscience (eyes opened) was now condemning them.
They could now see and understand their now acquired sinful condition or the state of being of experiencing shame.
Adam and Eve (because of a now bad conscience) chose to fashion design body covering - Genesis 3:7 (fig leaves)
Their bad conscience made them fully aware they were now sinners. Adam a deliberate sinner rebelling against God.
They now needed more than perishable fig leaves so God dressed them with animal skins perhaps deer skins.
- Genesis 3:21
Adam is blamed because Adam ate second. Adam was Not deceived but Eve was - 1 Timothy 2:14.
This is why the blame is placed on Adam and Not on Eve - Romans 5:12; Romans 5:19
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
Knowing wrong and feeling the consequences of wrong doing is Not the same as Not knowing.
Boy, good thing it says that when they ate the fruit their eyes were opened, and they knew. Y'know, because they didn't know before. Additionally, Adam says that he ate what his wife gave him, and she says the Serpent tricked her. Truths. And yet, god saw fit to punish all of them, including the then-innocent victims of deception.

I am wondering what you think of Genesis 3:2-3
Nothing more than parroting what she had been told, with no concept of repercussions from violating it. They had not eaten of the tree, and thus had no concept of right and wrong. This includes obedience and disobedience, as they function on such knowledge.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Obeying Genesis 2:17 meant : everlasting life on Earth.
Disobeying meant: everlasting death. ( thus No resurrection for Adam and Eve )
Since we are innocent of what A&E did is why God sent pre-human heavenly Jesus to Earth for us.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
I don't think you yet understand that obeying and disobeying are reliant on knowledge of good and evil; what is right and what is wrong. Without those, one cannot grasp what obeying and disobeying is. We can very easily observe this with newborns and even infants. As Adam and Eve had yet to eat from the tree, they did not have knowledge of right and wrong. They were absolutely unable to either obey or disobey, having no concept of the ramifications of either.

Per the myth, not only did Yahweh allow this to happen, he specifically set in motion the things for this to happen. Including Adam and Eve's total ignorance. And from that domino effect came all the evils and woes of the world, per the myth. With no small blame to be laid at Yahweh's feet, as he was the one to unduly curse Adam and Eve forevermore, rather than leave them with the curse of knowledge. Or, you know, not put the tree there in the first place.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
The one at the top cannot be accountable to anyone because there is nobody above Him to account to.
This is logic 101 stuff.
If you are going to claim that God is benevolent then that means God is accountable to what that word means. God can't do anything it damn well pleases IF God is benevolent. God will HAVE to be benevolent for that word to apply. Since you keep insisting your idea of God is benevolent then God will be accountable IF is acts in a way that is malevolent. God will be accountable to people like you if it is malevolent.

How you think about these issues is very simplistic and superficial. You miss or ignore the depth of these issues so often that it's like sabotage.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Because God is (or can be) all knowing is why God chose to give His intelligent creation: choices.
We (whether angelic or human) are created with the ability to freely choose.
We can all choose to be responsible toward God if we want too.

If you had a generous neighbor who had many fruit trees on his property and told you that you can come over any time and have as much fruit as you want 'except' for one particular fruit tree, would you consider your generous neighbor as reprehensible ___________
Out of ALL the trees on Earth only ONE tree belonged to God ( tree of knowledge of good and evil )
By saying ' don't touch.... ' was as if God put up a No trespassing sign on His one-and-only tree on Earth.
So, I wonder how just ONE tree out of all the trees on Earth could be considered an obvious trap.
It was Not as if anyone was lacking food. ALL had access to the Tree of Life.
For all we know there could very well have been other trees exactly like the tree of knowledge... but only ONE particular tree belonged to God.
It's a reasonable request by God.

What gets me is why God didn't create A&E with better discipline and resistance to temptation, and then sends the serpent to tempt them, which God knew would dupe them. Sounds like A&E got set up to fail.

If God really wanted its tree left alone you don't send something to dare them to deny God's rule. Something's very fishy.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
If you are going to claim that God is benevolent then that means God is accountable to what that word means. God can't do anything it damn well pleases IF God is benevolent. God will HAVE to be benevolent for that word to apply. Since you keep insisting your idea of God is benevolent then God will be accountable IF is acts in a way that is malevolent. God will be accountable to people like you if it is malevolent.
God is not accountable to any humans so God does not have to "prove" to any humans that He is benevolent.
God can do anything He damn well pleases because God is omnipotent.

The problem with a word such as benevolent is that it means different things to different people. For example, I believe that God is kind and fair and given to doing good based upon what I believe about what God does or does not do. You believe that God is not kind and fair or given to doing good based upon what you believe about what God does or does not do.

Benevolent

If you describe a person in authority as benevolent, you mean that they are kind and fair.
The company has proved to be a most benevolent employer.

Benevolent definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Benevolent

1. a. Characterized by or given to doing good: "a benevolent philanthropist who donated the funds to found the town library" (Willie Morris).

benevolent
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Knowing wrong and feeling the consequences of wrong doing is Not the same as Not knowing.(Genesis 2:17)
At Genesis 3:7 their conscience (eyes opened) was now condemning them.
They could now see and understand their now acquired sinful condition or the state of being of experiencing shame.
Adam and Eve (because of a now bad conscience) chose to fashion design body covering - Genesis 3:7 (fig leaves)
Their bad conscience made them fully aware they were now sinners. Adam a deliberate sinner rebelling against God.
They now needed more than perishable fig leaves so God dressed them with animal skins perhaps deer skins.
- Genesis 3:21
Adam is blamed because Adam ate second. Adam was Not deceived but Eve was - 1 Timothy 2:14.
This is why the blame is placed on Adam and Not on Eve - Romans 5:12; Romans 5:19
Really!

Who is one human as a baby self today who portrays or states how two humans behaved in life as choices?

The status science and medical human says a human is equal as one. A human. Spirituality self first natural.

Second advice two humans holy are a human equal.

Third advice they had sex to own your presence.

Advice natural.
Knowing natural.

Then false preacher theist starts spruiking lies. Scientist.

The life in Trinity hydrogen oxygen equalled water.

Water is not any string liars it is mass.

Pressure holy mother womb owns its presence. Holiness. Trinity mother womb.

Your scientist a liar changed the body mass of gods seal...sealed by water.

Even sky 12..12 balances changed into eve. 12...12 remained present.

You said + cross is NSEW.

S E W ....N. why the bible a scientists evaluation living telling said the nothing space conversions confessed.

Your sinful man in science confession earth titled shifted mass. O gods mass.

Removed pressure.

And you did it.

You blamed space womb. Said it changed its holding as you are personally an egotistical liar.

You however confessed as a self Idolator of man in science. You said man was innocent as the liar as you never realised what would happen.

Which is egotistical actually to claim innocence when you were guilty.

You blamed maths and space for changing when you changed both.

Why in science you quote minus one. A total lie. You said first law in space burning minused one body for space to develop into the womb.

You imposed you were copying creation history. Making space increase as space.

1 to 12 he said is time.

I wanted time as the day shifted. A confession of men in science.

Time never shifted it was constant gases burning voiding in the space womb vacuum.

Sun thesis to shift time a thesis known to men as purely evil.

A confess of Sion today. I want God to equals spatial UFO accumulation as and via a man confession I agree with an alien.

Instead of God and human Satan images held as self images of humans as angels in cloud mass.

Father told me several bodies once present as angel bodies are gone to defend earth by a space tunnel frozen instead of being present as clouds.

To hold UFO amassing to cool so it cannot enter atmosphere.

Time shifting sciences wants to move it forwards into space opening by burning activation. Minus one in mass. Meaning leave the tunnel go into burning gases and alight for combustion fall.

Stephen the king sacrificed man warning.

In a psyche that meant human life protection angel image gone by water mass held and pressure constant. Science lying pretended a human being turned into an alien.

By inference to the aware information. The angel simply is not present.

As Satanists preached the Satan angels kept human life safe. So you know the technical science yourselves and hide by placating religious terms.

I learnt both.

How science posession obsessed with destruction became a man lying.

Eve was a space womb man in maths confession. I caused it. Who knowing he was wrong blamed his lack of wisdom and not self.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I would be skeptical of a human being claiming to speak for the creator of the entire universe.
You certainly should be skeptical, more than skeptical.
Path for what? If the purpose of our existence is to know and love God (which is also an assumption), then it seems that suffering should not be required in order to fulfill that purpose.
As I said, humans have a second purpose, a purpose aside from knowing and loving God. Suffering is required in order to fulfill our second purpose which is to acquire spiritual qualities.
We don't know that God doesn't directly cause the suffering.
The only way we can know anything about God is from scriptures and there is no indication in the scriptures that God directly causes suffering.
You might say that human suffering is caused by other humans exercising their free will, but the problem with free will is that, by announcing His presence by sending messengers and issuing commands, God has already tainted the idea of free will. Consider how children have religious beliefs and dogma drilled and drummed into their head literally from birth. This affects the thought processes and can condition them towards learned behaviors, not free will.
That might impair the free will of adults if as children they had religious beliefs and dogma drilled and drummed into their head, but it does not take away their free will. The proof of that is that many people who had religious beliefs and dogma drilled and drummed into their heads as children have been able to break free of those beliefs when they entered adulthood.
If God had just left us alone and let us do whatever we thought was best, then it would have been a true test of character and free will. By instilling the fear of God into people at an early age, it can be stressful and toxic, leading to the kinds of aberrant behaviors which can lead to even more suffering.
If God had just left us alone and let us do whatever we thought was best, all people would have different ideas of what is best for them and some people would want what is bad for them. The Messengers off the guidance from God who alone knows what is best because God created humans and God is all-knowing and all-wise.
"Free will" isn't really free if one is making choices under conditions of extreme duress and coercion. A contract signed under duress is not valid.
I agree, but where is the duress? It is not coming from my religion.
Would you argue that people who turn from being wonderful and friendly into violent and bloodthirsty purely by their own choice? Does an otherwise sane and well-adjusted human being just wake up one morning and decide "Hey, I think I'm going to become a homicidal maniac"? There might very well be cases like that in history, but to say that it's merely a matter of humans exercising free will is such a gross oversimplification so as to become meaningless.
Are you saying it is acceptable behavior to become a homicidal maniac simply because one was deprived of their creature comforts, food, sleep, sonic showers, and/or one's life was in jeopardy over an extended period of time? Are you implying that they did not have a choice except to behave that way? How many people do you think would behave that way? No, I do not think that happens very often because people have a choice as to whether they will behave that way or not.
If there is no God, then the whole discussion would be moot. But if one proposes the idea that some supremely powerful entity called "God" designed and built this place we're living in, it seems incongruous and counterintuitive to further assert that this Creator has nothing to do with what happens here or the processes which govern the life cycle of humans and other living things.
It is entirely possible that a God could exist under those conditions, and that would be the deist idea of God. However, Bahais do not believe that God is completely aloof and uninvolved, as we believe in a personal God who is a being with a personality (including the capacity to reason and to feel love), but God is clearly not like a human that has a physical form. Baha'is believe that God is the non-created cause of all existence and the transcendent reality by which all existence is ruled and maintained. However, ruling and maintaining does not imply interfering with human free will decisions and ensuing actions.
Well, that's nice. Some religions might paint a more benevolent portrait of God. I agree that not all religions are the same in this regard, but the religions which have held most of the influence and political power over humans are the ones I would look at.
Yes, and you would be referring to Christianity and Islam.
I strongly disagree with your view that "we all suffer equally." Anyone with eyes and ears can clearly see that's not true at all.
I certainly did not mean that all humans suffer equally! Nothing could be further from the truth. When I said "We all suffer equally, whether we have a religion or not because suffering is inherent in a life in the material world" I meant that as a group religious believers and nonbelievers both suffer because suffering is inherent in a life in the material world and we all live in the material world.

(Continued on next post)
 
Top