Why would evil and suffering be necessary, good, or just?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'll ask a simple question. Is the Christian God, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, and omnibenevolent?

---

Unfortunately I haven't given that question much thought or study to answer, it's kind of like watching Alabama smoke you 59-0 and trying to figure out what color water coolers we should have had. There's bigger things that need to be addressed

---

This is so bad.

quote:

---

And those qualities boney listed are the qualities ascribed to the Christian God by those theologians. Without those qualities, one cannot trust what God says is true.

---

All theologians? The omnis are they are currently tossed around in this thread didn't carry the definitions they currently do until a couple hundred years ago.

Also, what does that have anything to do with trust? We trust very flawed human beings everyday. Do YOU only trust infinitely perfect entities? Considering your proclivity to become a mouth piece for incredibly flawed historical perspectives I somehow doubt this.

quote:

---

If God is benevolent and good, then ALL suffering must either not occur, only occur justly, or demonstrably relate to grander, benevolent mission.

---

Demonstrably according to whose perspective?

quote:

---

But it's a Catch-22

---

Not really. It can be a bit of a paradox, depending on your definitions.


This is really a meaningless argument, though. It's mostly a question of definitions. It's also a question of divine purpose, the answer of which no one on earth is equipped to answer.

Ultimately, you can accept that these questions cannot be answered concretely and still have faith in divine good and purpose, or you can stubbornly cling to your nihilistic meaningless existence. Most people choose the former, but that's really up to you.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'll ask a simple question. Is the Christian God, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, and omnibenevolent?

---

Unfortunately I haven't given that question much thought or study to answer, it's kind of like watching Alabama smoke you 59-0 and trying to figure out what color water coolers we should have had. There's bigger things that need to be addressed

---

This is so bad.

---

I don't understand the source of your incredulity. He's simply stating these kind of questions don't factor into his faith, which, in truth, is likely conducive to most people's perspective. What makes you think that your personal evaluation of their importance is universal?

quote:

---

If everyone is exposed to God in some way it's astounding we've never found a tribe of Christians

---

Those two statements are not equivalents.

We have come across many cultures that believe in a supreme being that is very reminiscent of the God of Christianity. No where in the Bible does it even remotely indicate that the gospel itself will ever be revealed more then one place in one particular time.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And those qualities boney listed are the qualities ascribed to the Christian God by those theologians. Without those qualities, one cannot trust what God says is true.

---

All theologians? The omnis are they are currently tossed around in this thread didn't carry the definitions they currently do until a couple hundred years ago.

Also, what does that have anything to do with trust? We trust very flawed human beings everyday. Do YOU only trust infinitely perfect entities? Considering your proclivity to become a mouth piece for incredibly flawed historical perspectives I somehow doubt this.

quote:

---

If God is benevolent and good, then ALL suffering must either not occur, only occur justly, or demonstrably relate to grander, benevolent mission.

---

Demonstrably according to whose perspective?

quote:

---

But it's a Catch-22

---

Not really. It can be a bit of a paradox, depending on your definitions.


This is really a meaningless argument, though. It's mostly a question of definitions. It's also a question of divine purpose, the answer of which no one on earth is equipped to answer.

Ultimately, you can accept that these questions cannot be answered concretely and still have faith in divine good and purpose, or you can stubbornly cling to your nihilistic meaningless existence. Most people choose the former, but that's really up to you.

---

The notion of God as the embodiment of the good and possessing omnipotence and omnipresence goes back at least to the Neo-Platonists and Augustine. And it's much more than a case of conflicting definitions. It goes to the heart of the case for the existence of God and the nature of God. Christian philosophers have spent centuries trying to grasp the nature of God because it is such a crucial question. A God who is not intrinsically just or good could not create a just or good world. Nor could such a God be relied on, since a God that does not possess the quality of ultimate goodness would have no reason or obligation to keep promises made or even present an accurate impression of reality.

Oh, off topic, but my historical positions are mainstream positions. If anything, they're slightly conservative compared to many other historians. I come to them by reading ALOT of primary and secondary sources. If you have a problem with my positions that's fine, but have a coherent argument. Otherwise you sound like someone who selects readings of history that just reinforce existing biases.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If everyone is exposed to God in some way it's astounding we've never found a tribe of Christians

---

Those two statements are not equivalents.

We have come across many cultures that believe in a supreme being that is very reminiscent of the God of Christianity. No where in the Bible does it even remotely indicate that the gospel itself will ever be revealed more then one place in one particular time.

---

Can you name a few of these cultures?

Sapper,

Is it possible for a God to create a world that allows evil yet still be completely trustworthy and just?

Yes or no. Skip the word play and deep philosophy reasoning. No answering my question with a question. I want a one word answer.

quote:

---

Sapper,

Is it possible for a God to create a world that allows evil yet still be completely trustworthy and just?

Yes or no. Skip the word play and deep philosophy reasoning. No answering my question with a question. I want a one word answer.

---

if all powerful then no

if not all powerful then yes

God had a chosen people that he revealed himself to. If another tribe popped up, that would contradict the chosen people part.

God did reveal himself to these people, he just did it through other people who he instructed to share the gospel. Why would they need to share the gospel if he was just going to do it on his own?

I guess you you just have questions about the channel he chose to reveal himself.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Sapper,

Is it possible for a God to create a world that allows evil yet still be completely trustworthy and just?

Yes or no. Skip the word play and deep philosophy reasoning. No answering my question with a question. I want a one word answer.

---

if all powerful then no

if not all powerful then yes

---

Interesting position, I would disagree but since neither of us are gods and our positions cannot be proven right or wrong I believe we have reache an impasse.

yet when asked about cultures that never had contact with Christians very often Christians will argue that those people can be saved and God does reveal himself to those who seek Him

if an all powerful God exists and evil exists then God must be the creator of evil and allow evil. If God created and allows evil he cannot be entirely trustworthy.that is my basic thought process on the subject.

quote:

---

if an all powerful God exists and evil exists then God must be the creator of evil and allow evil. If God created and allows evil he cannot be entirely trustworthy.that is my basic thought process on the subject.

---

I can see your point of view and that makes sense. Like I said I disagree. I believe that an all-powerful god can allow evil and still be trustworthy. So like I said this is a discussion that cannot be proven so at the end of the day it comes down to faith.

Good talk. turns out healthy conversations can be had here.

quote:

---

Sapper,

Is it possible for a God to create a world that allows evil yet still be completely trustworthy and just?

Yes or no. Skip the word play and deep philosophy reasoning. No answering my question with a question. I want a one word answer.

---

What makes you think it is just a one word answer?

My response is, yes IF it can be shown that there are no cases of unredeemable evil.

I saw a thing on facebook a few months ago that said something like, Babies cry when they're hungry because it's literally the worst thing they've ever experienced.

This got me thinking about human suffering and the greater questions of why God created/allows it. Please don't interpret this to mean that I take anyone's suffering lightly but if seen in the context of the infinite, is there any suffering on earth that is truly all that bad?

Nonreg:

That makes sense to me in general. One thing I would point out is that some suffering can significantly alter thought patterns and brain activity, and it can do so in such a way that it is impossible to think oneself out of, even with such comforts as what you've spoken of. Some suffering can be so debilitating that the mind turns to mush (to be colloquial). For those people, I would argue they are incapable of seeing such reason.

I meant "truly all that bad," in the meta-physical sense. Suffering can absolutely be debilitating to humans but, as we pass to the next life, we may find it was really not as bad as we thought.

quote:

---

I saw a thing on facebook a few months ago that said something like, Babies cry when they're hungry because it's literally the worst thing they've ever experienced.

This got me thinking about human suffering and the greater questions of why God created/allows it. Please don't interpret this to mean that I take anyone's suffering lightly but if seen in the context of the infinite, is there any suffering on earth that is truly all that bad?

---

This is under the assumption that God is allowing the suffering. For which there is no proof. So until we find out what happens when we die (if we have conscienceness) there is no possible way to know. As of right now... It can be pretty bad. If belief helps you through one of those times than more power to you.

quote:

---

So until we find out what happens when we die (if we have conscienceness) there is no possible way to know. As of right now... It can be pretty bad.

---

I agree. What helps me through tough times is faith (based on relationship with God)...not some abstract thought about how suffering in this life might not be all that bad.

To me it's just an interesting thought when I read things like, "How can you worship a God who allows such unspeakable suffering?" Is it really unspeakable? Certainly in human terms it is but, as you point out, we won't know until we pass. You can think of it in light of that baby crying because it's hungry. A parent will feed a crying baby but knowing that he/she just ate 2 hours ago, they may not stop in the middle of something important to immediately feed them. Or, maybe a better example, I let my teenagers suffer the consequences of their decisions/lack of planning for some period of time before helping them fix it. I allow that suffering because I know they will be better for it. Obviously, I'm not talking about war and famine with my kids but to God and in terms of the infinite, maybe war and famine are akin to my earthly examples.

I'm not claiming this to be fact or even good theology. I have no idea why God allows what He allows other than what scripture tells us--and that has been discussed on many threads.

If our suffering is nothing once we experience heaven how much less special is Jesus' suffering having already having known heaven and knowing he'd be back soon.


Herp derp Swype texting my next comment is the same idea more coherently.

I don't understand what you're hoping for.

if you say "maybe suffering in this life really isn't that bad" then you must also agree that Jesus suffering really wasn't that bad thus his sacrifice really wasn't that impressive

So, "hope," was supposed to be "how?"

To answer your question, Jesus was is fully God and Fully human so his suffering was as bad as it would be for any human.

quote:

---

If our suffering is nothing one we experience heaven hope much less special is Jesus suffering having already known heaven and knowing he'd be back soon.

---

Just fyi Jim I don't understand this post at all. See if you can revise it.

quote:

---

If our suffering is nothing one we experience heaven hope much less special is Jesus suffering having already known heaven and knowing he'd be back soon.

---

I think when I'm in heaven, I will remember the suffering this statement inflicted on my brain.

I apologize for that awful and confusing post

No problem, I initially keyed in on "hope" so I truly didn't know what you were trying to say. Your second post cleared it up.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If our suffering is nothing one we experience heaven hope much less special is Jesus suffering having already known heaven and knowing he'd be back soon.

---

I think when I'm in heaven, I will remember the suffering this statement inflicted on my brain.

---

quote:

---

The notion of God as the embodiment of the good and possessing omnipotence and omnipresence goes back at least to the Neo-Platonists and Augustine. And it's much more than a case of conflicting definitions.

---

Those two words didn't mean to them what they mean to you. It very much is a case of conflicting definitions.

If we take the classical definitions, which implied most powerful, but not, in the most literal sense, all powerful, then there is very little problem in the supposed problem of evil.

quote:

---

Oh, off topic, but my historical positions are mainstream positions.

---

The notion that gender just magically appeared 200 years ago is mainstream? Somehow I doubt that (that's hyperbole, Sapper, before you start bunching up your panties).

quote:

---

If anything, they're slightly conservative compared to many other historians.

---

I'm not sure how that makes any difference what so ever.

quote:

---

I come to them by reading ALOT of primary and secondary sources. If you have a problem with my positions that's fine, but have a coherent argument. Otherwise you sound like someone who selects readings of history that just reinforce existing biases.

---

Cute. I have, multiple times, asked you to cite your sources, and you've regularly ignored the request.

I just finished reading the Autobiography of Malcolm X, and it reinforced my black supremacists worldview. You got me pegged, brother.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If everyone is exposed to God in some way it's astounding we've never found a tribe of Christians

---

Those two statements are not equivalents.

We have come across many cultures that believe in a supreme being that is very reminiscent of the God of Christianity. No where in the Bible does it even remotely indicate that the gospel itself will ever be revealed more then one place in one particular time.

---

Can you name a few of these cultures?

---

Manicheasm. Zorastrianism. Buddhism.

Just off the top of my head.

quote:

---

if you say "maybe suffering in this life really isn't that bad" then you must also agree that Jesus suffering really wasn't that bad thus his sacrifice really wasn't that impressive

---

Although I tend to waiver from the vicarious redemption stance, I do think there is something to the notion that he didn't have to suffer at all, ever. Not once. He had the choice to remain in a state of perpetual awesomeness, and chose to suffer instead.

Most Americans wont even go to third world country to suffer a few months with their fellow man. They, similarly, "know its only going to be temporary" yet still couldn't be bothered with the inconvenience. I can only imagine the gap in conscious existence between the realm of God and our own. I think we can all agree that if such a thing exists, there are several orders of magnitude between it and our own world and experiences. Considerably more then, say, a first world versus a few months in a third world. It's much simpler to propose that it's not that big of a deal when you aren't the one faced with the decision.

Is this a serious question?

quote:

---

Why have we never found a tribe of people who have independently come to Christ and Christian doctrine? How is it that nobody ever pursued truth and came to Jesus without direct contact with Christians (that we know of)?

We've discovered so many isolated indigenous people but never have they received divine Christian revelation bringing them to anything recognizable as Christian?

I hear people say pursuing truth will lead you to God and if you seek him he will reveal himself. It's amazing to me we've no evidence of God revealing himself to anybody before Christians made contact.

---

I would like to recommend 2 books. Peace Child and Eternity in their Hearts, both by Don Richardson. If you are open to see how Christ works through isolated indigenous people to prepare them for the gospel. A book titled Brucko also includes a pre-prepped tribe for the gospel in it's story.

I know of one tribe in the Amazon in which an indigenous person saw a flower and looked towards the heavens and cried out. I want to know the maker of such beauty. A few years later a missionary translates Gods words into his language and now he knows the Maker of the flower. It's one of the smaller language groups alive (maybe only 100 people at that time spoke that language) Extremely Isolated.