• 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!

Suffering and evil

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
Incidentally, if I or any number of other benevolent people had the powers of a god, you would not be suffering..
Well, that's nonsense..
People suffer for all sorts of reasons.

..but you feel that God should wave His "magic wand", and relieve all suffering immediately.
If mankind were to observe a few simple rules, the suffering of people in the world would be vastly reduced..

..rather than the wealthy demanding usury on loans, they could loan without thought of gain .. or give wealth in charity.
..but no .. we see throughout history, that mankind prefers to prop-up a financial system that appears to favour them, even though we are destroying our environment in the process.

This belief gives you no comfort, and it is interfering in your quest to find companionship if it limits you only to other theists..
We are only human, after all.
Patience in adversity is far from easy.
Believers put their trust in God. He is enough for us. :)
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well, that's nonsense. People suffer for all sorts of reasons.

I had written, "Incidentally, if I or any number of other benevolent people had the powers of a god, you would not be suffering." Dismissing a claim out of hand is not a rebuttal. The claim, though rejected, remains unchallenged. A tri-omni god would know those reasons and have prevented the suffering rather than causing it. And yes, a tri-omni god would be the cause of everything that exists and because it has the knowledge and power to make it that way or any other way possible, it is responsible for what follows. Talking about free will doesn't change that. I understand the believer cannot countenance such a possibility, but the critical thinker, who is free to go where reason and the evidence take him, and who is only interested in what is true rather than what comforts him whether correct or not, can and must.

but you feel that God should wave His "magic wand", and relieve all suffering immediately.

No. I believe that no tri-omni god exists because it doesn't do those things. The believer tells us that his god has infinite knowledge and power (magic wand), and a heart as big as Texas, and then tries to explain how the world appears as if no such thing exists anyway. Sure, it loves you and can do anything for you, but don't expect anything from it. Sorry, but that's the opposite of being convincing that this god exists. That's evidence that it doesn't.

If mankind were to observe a few simple rules, the suffering of people in the world would be vastly reduced..
..rather than the wealthy demanding usury on loans, they could loan without thought of gain .. or give wealth in charity.
..but no .. we see throughout history, that mankind prefers to prop-up a financial system that appears to favour them, even though we are destroying our environment in the process.

Where do benevolent gods figure into that?
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
A tri-omni god would know those reasons and have prevented the suffering rather than causing it. And yes, a tri-omni god would be the cause of everything that exists and because it has the knowledge and power to make it that way or any other way possible, it is responsible for what follows..
Almighty God IS responsible for "what follows"..
No soul will be wronged the "dint in a date stone" on the day of judgment ..

Do not think that Almighty God is not aware of why we suffer in this life .. He is aware of all things.
God has decided IN HIS WISDOM, (while you claim to be wiser), that mankind have to take responsibility for themselves.
He intervenes as and when He wills.

Where do benevolent gods figure into that?
Almighty God has provided us with guidance, but particularly since the enlightenment, we have become proud and our financial dealings are not "kosher", causing Empire building and World Wars.
i.e. we oppress one another, while we perceive we are peacemakers

It is spiritual blindness and love of wealth that is causing climate-change and increasing catastrophe. We ruin our own souls.

Jesus is reported to have said "For the rich man to enter the kingdom of God, is like the camel passing through the eye of the needle."

Almighty God is not going to let us completely destroy ourselves.
He will intervene .. He will send Jesus .. and the time fast approaches .. Armageddon is very close indeed.
40 years ago, the bedouin were in the desert with their camels, but now they have competed with each other, and have constructed the tallest building in the world.

satan loves to cause division .. but he will no longer be able to when Jesus is amongst us. Disbelief and hypocrisy will be laid bare.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Almighty God IS responsible for "what follows".. No soul will be wronged the "dint in a date stone" on the day of judgment ..

A deity that allows suffering for no constructive reason is not benevolent. I don't know what a dint in a date stone is or how it relates to this.

God has decided IN HIS WISDOM, (while you claim to be wiser), that mankind have to take responsibility for themselves. He intervenes as and when He wills.

I don't claim to be wiser than an omniscient god. I say that there is no tri-omni deity. I say that a god would be at least as smart and good as the smartest and best people. I am comparing my thoughts to the people that wrote about gods. Their descriptions are incoherent, hence the theodicy issue. A tri-omni deity would not let gratuitous harm befall man and beast. How do I know? Because I know what benevolence is.

The apologist believes that this god exists, and can see the suffering, and so concludes that that suffering must somehow be beneficial for man. That's exactly the reverse of the way critical thinking proceeds, which is from evidence to conclusion. The evidence is that this benevolent deity doesn't exist, but if one it assumes it does before examining the evidence - that is, by faith - then he must somehow try to make the evidence fit his faith-based belief, and so we hear that there may be some benevolent reason for allowing suffering and to stop trying to think like a god. It's a defeatist attitude, one that surrenders to irrational dogma. To borrow from the theists, it's a sin of the soul. We were born sovereign over our minds, but sometimes we give some of that away and let others tell us tell what to believe however illogical or unevidenced.

Almighty God has provided us with guidance, but particularly since the enlightenment, we have become proud and our financial dealings are not "kosher", causing Empire building and World Wars. i.e. we oppress one another, while we perceive we are peacemakers

Not a fan of the Enlightenment and the rise of humanism, then? I think greed and war antedate the Enlightenment. Nothing about humanism promotes war or greed. Au contraire. I'm a humanist. I don't want more money or power, and I have no conflict in my life. Really.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
You are not God so you are not All-Knowing so you do not know whether suffering serves a constructive purpose or not. The fly in the ointment is that if this world is not all there is, that purpose might not be realized until after one dies and passes to the spiritual world.

As I have stated in other topics, omnipotence precludes the existence of suffering that is required to achieve any goal whatsoever.

Omnipotence entails that God doesn't need to follow any steps to achieve any goal. He can instantly achieve any goal.

Therefore, even if God chose suffering as a constructive purpose, he didn't have to. He could have achieved his goal instantly since that is what omnipotence entails.

In other words, saying that suffering might have a constructive purpose doesn't excuse it's existence.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Long story short:
Satan used to be an angel but he rebelled against God. He wanted to rule over others so he lied to Adam and Eve and they chose to believe his lie that God was withholding something from them, and they would be better off doing their own thing.
When Adam and Even disobeyed God's instructions, they became imperfect and passed on that imperfection to all their descendants (Rom. 5:12).
By doing this God gave Satan and humans the opportunity to rule themselves, but we have to live with the consequences. Even though He doesn't cause suffering, He's not stopping it yet.
Why do we suffer? For a number of reasons. Could be because of bad decisions (ours or someone else's), simple bad luck, because this system is extremely unfair... There are many different scenarios.
That doesn't mean God is indifferent to our suffering. He did promise to put an end to it after a certain amount of time (Revelation 21: 3,4).


That doesn't track because Yahweh and Satan worked together many times after Eden. And that was a serpent not Satan. Satan was the angel of Yahweh for a long time. He delivered 2 plagues and was on speaking terms with Yahweh.

The Revelations myth was in the Persian religion when they invaded Israel. Judaism took on many of their stories into their theology.

Mary Boyce is the leading scholar on the Persian religion, from hew work

"
Revelations


but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.

Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which

there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).
"

"
Doctrines



fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgment, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is 'paradise'), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith. Worship of the one supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect: which Zoroaster's teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaernenian empire.

"
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
A deity that allows suffering for no constructive reason is not benevolent...
..and who are you to decide what is a "constructive reason"?
..can you create a universe?
..no, thought not.

..suffering must somehow be beneficial for man..
Is the torture of one person by another beneficial?
No, of course not. It's just as well that this life is short, as
so many people in the world are suffering through no fault of their own.

Not a fan of the Enlightenment and the rise of humanism, then?
I'm not a fan of greed and mass industrialisation, no.

I'm a humanist. I don't want more money or power, and I have no conflict in my life. Really.
The OP is not about you or I..
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
who are you to decide what is a "constructive reason"?

I'm the guy judging whether this god exists or not. Abrahamic theists are constantly admonished not to think in such terms. Judging the claims made in holy books about gods is considered off limits to them - blasphemy. That's by design. If you accept those terms, then you are trapped in your faith. Who benefits from that? Not you. If there were any substance to any of these claims of this, you could be encouraged to question and investigate. That's how it is in academia.

But these ideas don't stand up under scrutiny, so the believer has to be dissuaded from using reason to evaluate them. He is told that they transcend reason. He is asked to believe that anything is possible however incoherent the idea is, such as allowing all of the suffering we see on earth is somehow benevolent.

And when he encounters others not burdened by the same inhibitions, he'll say something like what you just told me to try to stop them in their tracks, the implication being to stop thinking. That is because that is what HE has been told, and he accepted the advice, probably happily so as to defend his beliefs from reason and evidence that contradict them.

When you shut down your reasoning faculty, you sacrifice your only means of discovering that you are wrong when you are. As I suggested, I think that many theists like it that way. They're not as interested in being correct as the humanist, but in being psychologically comfortable, and they see their faith as that comforter, so why would they want to look at such beliefs too closely?.

Is the torture of one person by another beneficial? No, of course not. It's just as well that this life is short, as so many people in the world are suffering through no fault of their own.

The fault lies with he who could have prevented the torture.

Or maybe I should I give you your own answer back? Who are you to decide what's beneficial? Do you see how ineffective that is to be asked to believe that somehow, a man raping, torturing, and murdering a young girl was permitted by a tri-omni god, not to mention offensive?

Also, if you believe torture is not beneficial, and you believe in a tri-omni deity, you are contradicting yourself.

I'm not a fan of greed and mass industrialisation, no.

Is that how you define the Enlightenment? Are you a fan of science or of the liberal democratic state with its guaranteed personal rights? Those are the gift on humanism to humanity - the birth of modernity, the middle class, and the autonomous citizen (cf. subject).

Greed is not an Enlightenment value, and industrialization made life better. Yes, we've hit some stumbling blocks that needed or still need to be resolved such as ozone deletion, increased lead in the environment from leaded gasoline, DDT, smog, and now climate change, but these are a small price to pay for the windfall to mankind that industrialization has produced.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
The fault lies with he who could have prevented the torture..
Not at all. We are all accountable for our actions.
If anybody thinks that they can get away with torturing other people, they are wrong.

There is a good reason why God allows evil and suffering, and you claim that it makes God evil .. not at all. It's all part of the blame game. It is immature and childish to claim that mankind holds no responsibility for their actions.

Who are you to decide what's beneficial?
It s God who created the universe, and not me.

Also, if you believe torture is not beneficial, and you believe in a tri-omni deity, you are contradicting yourself..
You what? o_O

Greed is not an Enlightenment value, and industrialization made life better..
..better for whom? The Empire builders, you mean?

Yes, we've hit some stumbling blocks that needed or still need to be resolved such as ozone deletion, increased lead in the environment from leaded gasoline, DDT, smog, and now climate change, but these are a small price to pay for the windfall to mankind that industrialization has produced.
Really?
..and World Wars and devastation is a price worth paying too?

No .. greed is responsible for much enmity in the world .. and not religion.
The progression of Catholic Europe in which usurious banking was largely outlawed, to one which saw banking and Empire building in Protestant nations caused instability, which we are satill reeling from.

It is just that people see the world order as "normal", but it is far from normal.
Star wars is far from normal. Paradise lost.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There is a good reason why God allows evil and suffering, and you claim that it makes God evil

No, I claim that gratuitous suffering is evidence that no tri-omni exists.

It's all part of the blame game. It is immature and childish to claim that mankind holds no responsibility for their actions.

I make no such claim. I'm not blaming any gods for anything. I'm an atheist. Who else would be responsible? The zebras?

better for whom? The Empire builders, you mean?

Better for those who prefer that machines do whatever they find difficult or impossible, better for those able to enjoy electric lighting and air conditioning, better for people that wish to see the world or communicate in realtime with others in remote locations, better for people who enjoy television and the Internet. In our home, we have machines that wash our dishes, wash and dry our clothes, and several to cook our food, which stays fresh longer because we also have refrigerator. Almost anything machines make will be less expensive and probably more uniform in quality than handmade equivalents. I really appreciate my remote garage door opener. And my car. And the stereo in it.

World Wars and devastation is a price worth paying too?

Are you blaming industrialization or the Enlightenment for war?

It s God who created the universe, and not me.

Yes, but you wrote, "Is the torture of one person by another beneficial? No, of course not." When I commented that, "A deity that allows suffering for no constructive reason is not benevolent," you asked me who was I to make such a judgment, since I was unable to create a universe. You don't see a double standard there? I'm the guy who says that suffering on earth is often gratuitous - serving no useful purpose. You're the guy saying that torture isn't beneficial. We're both obviously correct, but my comment challenges your religious beliefs, and so you need to try to disqualify it.

That's what I mean by religious belief distorting moral judgment. If you didn't feel the need to defend your god, you wouldn't have made that comment, because obviously I was correct. No atheist would object. Nor the polytheists, because they don't believe that gods are necessarily benevolent. Some are tricksters. Some are destroyers. Some are indifferent to man. If you point out the existence of gratuitous suffering to them, they agree that it exists and is unfortunate. But you ask me how I can know if I'm not a universe creator.

Torture occurs, and no god intervenes. I can account for that, but how do you if you believe a god that loves man is aware that that torturing is occurring and doesn't intervene, like Trump watching the TV on January 6th and failing to intervene as advisors begged him to step in and he just smiled and fiddled as Rome burned? He'll tell you he's beneficent, but do you believe him? Of course not, because anybody who stands idly by watching those cops take the beatings they did forfeits the right to be called benevolent. And that applies to any gods out there who might behave the same.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
How does your religion explain why suffering and evil happen? Things like birth defects, the death of innocent people, starvation and sickness in developing nations, dictators, etc. I can't believe in a god that doesn't keep these things from happening.
Sin.
Kinda silly, IMO to blame God for our doing.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Omnipotence entails that God doesn't need to follow any steps to achieve any goal. He can instantly achieve any goal.
God can achieve any goal that he wants to achieve but only how HE chooses to achieve it.
An omnipotent God only does what HE chooses to do, not what humans think He should do.
This is what atheists totally miss.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
God can achieve any goal that he wants to achieve but only how HE chooses to achieve it.
An omnipotent God only does what HE chooses to do, not what humans think He should do.
This is what atheists totally miss.

You have missed the point though: "In other words, saying that suffering might have a constructive purpose doesn't excuse it's existence."

I am saying that any claims, like the one of yours I have quoted, about suffering being constructive are irrelevant. It is not a justification.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
It is not like responsibility has to fully reside in someone's hands though. Kinda silly to think that way.
No it's not. Blame is almost always about us, not about the other person or being. Releasing yourself from judgment means to quit judging God along with everyone else.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You have missed the point though: "In other words, saying that suffering might have a constructive purpose doesn't excuse it's existence."
God needs no excuses for the fact that suffering exists because God cannot ever make any mistakes since God is infallible.
Humans need excuses for the suffering that they cause because humans are fallible and they make mistakes.
It is as simple as that.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
Are you blaming industrialization or the Enlightenment for war?
I am blaming WWI and WWII on exactly that !
..and then there is WWIII just round the corner.

..my comment challenges your religious beliefs, and so you need to try to disqualify it..
It's not hard. I have already said that this life is as "a blink of an eye" compared to eternity.
Almighty God is Eternal and our souls belong to the eternal God.

There is suffering in this life but compared to the life hereafter, our suffering right now is nothing compared to what it will be like in the hereafter for those who choose rebellion and evil.

..Of course not, because anybody who stands idly by watching those cops take the beatings they did forfeits the right to be called benevolent. And that applies to any gods out there who might behave the same.
Childish discourse .. "gods" did not create and maintain a universe. The fact that God has chosen for us to "police ourselves" seems to be above your head.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
God needs no excuses for the fact that suffering exists because God cannot ever make any mistakes since God is infallible.
Humans need excuses for the suffering that they cause because humans are fallible and they make mistakes.
It is as simple as that.

Therefore, you mentioning constructive suffering as if that was an excuse for the existence of evil was irrelevant. Same conclusion.
 
Top