I know its been discussed plenty of times, but something in the 'Nobody goes to Hell' got me thinking and I didn't want to derail that thread:

Quote:

---

My objection to universal salvation is more of a moral issue wrapped up in the problem of suffering. Suffering is universal and terrible. We suffer from the moment of birth up to the moment of death. Some suffer more than others, but the suffering doesn't stop. Somewhere in the world at any point in time, someone is suffering the most excrucitating agony imaginable. So how can a good God allow suffering? I can only figure one way, because there is something more important at stake. So suffering has to happen in order to serve this higher and more important goal. As a Christian, it makes sense to look at that higher purpose as salvation. So in this instance suffering becomes a necessary tool to separate the good from the bad, the saved from the lost.

So why would that make me object to universal salvation? If everyone will experience eternal bliss and direct fellowship with God, then all of a sudden all that suffering no longer has any meaning. In that scenario, God creates a flawed universe, puts people in it to suffer for their entire lives, and then takes it all away and makes everyone blissfull for eternity. So what is the function of suffering in that instance? Is it just for grins? Is it so we appreciate Paradise more? Couldn't He just create us with that appreciation? The suffering is completely superfluous in that set up. And what kind of God makes people needlessly suffer?

---

Quote:

---

I think suffering refines us and makes us into the people God wants us to be.

---

In a Christian context, what would be the purpose of suffering? (Like I said, its been discussed already. . . . sorry - ignore this thread if you'd like)

Is suffering a necessary tool to separate good from bad? I worry that this is either a solution to an invented problem or that this statement unintentionally suggests something deterministic about salvation. In the former option, the invented problem is saying that the only way God can judge a thing to be saved or not is by subjecting it to suffering and observing its reaction. And the latter option suggests that a thing is inherently good or bad / saved or lost and that through playing the game of life, those inherent properties become clear to God. I believe that most or all of the Christians on this board probably reject the idea of predeterminism in this way.

The second quote above suggests suffering as a tool used by God to mold us to what He wants us to be.

But, I think this post invites an obvious question about whether or not suffering is directed through God. Not in a sadistic manner, but as that tool for refinement. Does God use suffering (or human experience more generally) to mold us into the people He wants us to be? And if suffering does have the ability to mold humans, then what is the result of a random application of suffering? The argument that God can direct suffering and experiences in our life to mold us into something requires the possibility that the misapplication or random application of that suffering and experience could push us away from God. Just as a skilled craftsman can turn a piece of wood into something useful and beautiful, the random application of hammers and saws and tools against a piece of wood could smash it into bits, right?

Which is why I ultimately agree with this from our resident dermatologist:

Quote:

---

And I believe God ultimately refines and purifies all of Creation. Otherwise God loses.

---

Not that I'm banking on this. . . but, this is the only conclusion that I can come up with that is consistent with how I think Christians see the God they believe in. For some of God's creation to not be saved would mean what?

* Some of that creation was created inherently bad?

* Some percentage of God's creation would use its free will to reject God. If so, why?
- Random application of suffering and experiences pushed part of God's creation away from God?
- God chooses which part of His creation to mold for salvation and which parts of His creation to not mold?
- Mathematical anomaly?

* The suffering and loss of salvation of some is acceptable collateral for having some part of the creation that does receive salvation?

I may very well be missing some options, but of the ones I can come up with. . . . I don't really think they match up well with how Christians view God. The idea of suffering as a tool or necessary process does not hold water for me. I think it suggests limitations on God. God can blink physical reality into existence, but can't prepare sentient beings for salvation without first torturing them a bit? I don't buy it.

Quote:

---

In a Christian context, what would be the purpose of suffering?

---

1. A test of faith (Job, 1 Pet. 1:6-7).
2. A means to draw us to him in prayer (Ps. 25:18, Ps. 102)
3. A means to draw us into repentance (Ps. 119:67, 71)
4. Sanctifying by removing our creature comforts. To teach us we are pilgrims and the things of this world are fleeting.
5. Punishment for a particular sin (Ps. 107:17, 1 Cor. 11:29-32, 2 Sam. 12:15)
6. A means to comfort others (2 Cor. 1:3-7)
7. A witness to others, particularly Christians (1 Thess. 3:7-8).

dermdoc said:

---

I think it all goes back to the Fall and man's free will. For God to truly love us, I believe He has to give us free will. And we choose daily evil or good.

---

I don't think this resolves the question. For mankind to choose evil, we are either required to be predisposed to that evil or we are externally influenced toward that evil.

As a Catholic, we are often told to offer it up, when we have sufferings. Some times it feels as if you're being told to suck it up buttercup, but there is a beauty to it.

First of all Christ who is our example in all things suffered, and was purely innocent. We are told that what the master had to endure so will his servant. The Lord never promised us freedom or even an easing from suffering. In fact he tells us to pick up our cross and to follow him. St Paul tells us in Colossians "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking* in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church". So as Christ offers his sufferings so we are to offer ours to the Father. I know Christ's sacrifice is what has rendered us free and there is nothing we can do to match it's perfection. However I believe Our Lord calls us to emulate him. I practice the Morning offering where we say I offer you my joys, works, pain and sufferings this day. Sometimes I have much to offer sometimes not so much, but if my life is being offered up, I am giving my day as a prayer and everything I do is being given to him.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen said about suffering: "It is not so much what people suffer that makes the world mysterious; it is rather how much they miss when they suffer. They seem to forget that even as children they made obstacles in their games in order to have something to overcome. Why, then, when they grow into man's estate, should there not be prizes won by effort and struggle? Cannot the spirit of man rise with adversity as the bird rises against the resistance of the wind? Do not the game fish swim upstream? Must not the chisel cut away the marble to bring out the form? Must not the seed falling to the ground die before it can spring forth into life? Must not grapes be crushed that there may be wine to drink, and wheat ground that there may be bread to eat? Why then cannot pain be made redemption? Why under the alchemy of Divine Love cannot crosses be turned into crucifixes? Why cannot chastisements be regarded as penances? Why cannot we use a cross to become God-like? We cannot become like Him in His Power; we cannot become like Him in His Knowledge. There is only one way we can become like Him, and that is in the way He bore His sorrows and His Cross. And that way was with love. It is love that makes pain bearable."

There are some good responses above.

I would add that my understanding of the meaning/purpose/role of suffering in Christianity starts with the fact that it is inevitable in a broken world.

Given this inevitability, God in an act of divine mercy condescended to become a man to enter into our broken world and experience our sufferings. However, in doing so he himself was not "broken" (he knew not sin although he became a sin offering for us) but he still accepted the suffering that flows from sin and brokenness and in doing so, he sanctified the suffering that is an unavoidable aspect of every human life, just as he sanctified the waters of baptism even though he did not need to be baptized. He taught us that to be his disciples we must deny ourselves , take up our cross and follow him. In sanctifying suffering by his Passion, he made it possible for our sufferings to have meaning to the extent we, by, through and under his grace, unite ourselves to him and our sufferings with his and do our best to imitate the perfect kenosis of his Passion by offering our sufferings for others. (See Colossians 1:24 where Paul speaks to making up what is "lacking" in the suffering of Christ, which has nothing to do with a deficiency in what Christ did, but rather speaks to the opportunity we are given to unite our sufferings with that of our crucified savior and in doing so offer them in a valuable way to the Father, not because of anything we did, but because they are made part of the infinitely meritorious offering of Christ of himself).

TLDNR: Suffering is inevitable in a broken world. Jesus, the Incarnation, enters into our broken world, sanctifying our sufferings by accepting the suffering that flows from sin even though he was sinless, and in doing so he invites us to accept our suffering and unite it to his, thereby giving merit/meaning/value to our suffering, contributing to the sanctifying of our souls, and through the merits of the sacrifice of Christ, helping to save others.

I find the story of Job abhorrent.

I also find the idea of suffering being some sort of beautiful thing really lacking, especially against the backdrop of us modern folks that, in the grand scheme of things, have life incredibly easy by comparison.

Macarthur said:

---

I find the story of Job abhorrent.

---

That and Ecclesiastes are my two favorite books of the Bible.

Along with the Gospel of John. Especially the first 13 verses.

And yet we complain so much more.

Zobel said:

---

its both.

human nature is inherently good - Christ is truly human, like us in every way except sin.

sin is a corrupting element that turns our nature away from the good (predisposition)

there are also external influences around us - sin in the world - that influences us toward evil.

grace in general and repentance in particular free us from both.

---

I see conflict in the idea of corrupt predisposition and negative external influences and judgement against corrupt or negative results. Which is why I think I am sympathetic to the universalist position in this context.

The flip side is that God is merciful and grace is sufficient.

jrico2727 said:

---

Must not grapes be crushed that there may be wine to drink, and wheat ground that there may be bread to eat? Why then cannot pain be made redemption? Why under the alchemy of Divine Love cannot crosses be turned into crucifixes? Why cannot chastisements be regarded as penances? Why cannot we use a cross to become God-like? We cannot become like Him in His Power; we cannot become like Him in His Knowledge. There is only one way we can become like Him, and that is in the way He bore His sorrows and His Cross. And that way was with love. It is love that makes pain bearable."

---

I appreciate the responses on this thread. A number of the responses have focused on the benefit of suffering. However. . . . .

Using the analogy of grapes being crushed to make wine. . . . If I possessed the power to snap my fingers to turn grapes to wine, then what would be the utility be in harvesting the grapes, crushing them, fermenting them. . . . etc.? It seems to me that there is an idea here that for God to snap his fingers to infuse us with whatever it is we are to learn through suffering would cheapen that the end result.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Must not grapes be crushed that there may be wine to drink, and wheat ground that there may be bread to eat? Why then cannot pain be made redemption? Why under the alchemy of Divine Love cannot crosses be turned into crucifixes? Why cannot chastisements be regarded as penances? Why cannot we use a cross to become God-like? We cannot become like Him in His Power; we cannot become like Him in His Knowledge. There is only one way we can become like Him, and that is in the way He bore His sorrows and His Cross. And that way was with love. It is love that makes pain bearable."

---

I appreciate the responses on this thread. A number of the responses have focused on the benefit of suffering. However. . . . .

Using the analogy of grapes being crushed to make wine. . . . If I possessed the power to snap my fingers to turn grapes to wine, then what would be the utility be in harvesting the grapes, crushing them, fermenting them. . . . etc.? It seems to me that there is an idea here that for God to snap his fingers to infuse us with whatever it is we are to learn through suffering would cheapen that the end result.

---

I think that's a fair question. The best response I have heard to this starts with why we exist.

God created us in an act of pure love because of his desire to share the love of the divine life of the Trinity with us and to have us love him in return. True love can only be given and received freely. If God "snapped his fingers" the love he wills to give and wants to receive would not be freely accepted/given by the creature. Authentically free will is necessary. It also includes the risk of choosing badly. So we were created with free will and when we chose poorly, brokenness entered the equation. . Even in an unbroken world, it would still have been necessary for us as creatures to freely choose to love God and so receive the fullness of his love. Even without sin, our ability to commune with God, the created with the Divine, would have required some preparation before full communion would be possible. This is Theosis, the process of becoming able to share in the Divine nature.

After sin enters, this is still the plan, but now the process of Theosis (divinization or deification) is more daunting from the creature's perspective. It could/can only be possible if the Divine condescended to "correct" the situation, making it possible not only for the broken creature to freely choose to love the Divine creator, but also for the creature to once again freely engage in and be changed by the process of Theosis, ultimately becoming united to the Divine, which was the creature's original purpose and destiny from the beginning.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
I think suffering refines us and makes us into the people God wants us to be.

And I believe God ultimately refines and purifies all of Creation. Otherwise God loses.

---

I'm just going to talk through this idea. So the perfect God creates imperfect men. To correct that imperfection He creates suffering, which is unquestionably the worst thing anyone can experience. God then makes His imperfect creation suffer in order to perfect them. Again, the suffering is an unnecessary step, right? If God's only goal was the perfection of everyone, then He could just make us perfect in the first place.

---

There's too many ways to answer your question. But I made this reply in the other thread, and I think it makes a good jumping off point. Let's start with a fundamental Christian premise: a perfect God made imperfect men. How does that even happen? How does a perfect Creator create anything imperfect? Wouldn't that mean the Creator is imperfect? Perfection can only create more perfection, right? What does imperfection even mean in this case? To Christians, imperfection is sin. Sin is everything about us that is in contrast to God. Everything that is not Godly, holy, pure, love is sin and imperfect. So how does God make imperfect beings? He gives them agency and free will. People are made perfect, but they have the choice to not be perfect. This is the gist of the Adam and Eve story. God makes people perfect, wants them to be perfect, but He gives us free will and a choice. Why else would there be a forbidden tree in a perfect garden? God could have just not put the forbidden tree there, and Adam and Eve would still be living in paradise.

So why is it better to create beings with free will and choice? Why is that more perfect than unsinning, flawless automatons? The only answer I have for that is love. Love can't be forced, cajoled, imposed, or programmed. Love must be freely given, and that mandates the potential for love to be withheld. So for this to make sense, freely given love must be the greatest, most perfect thing in all creation. Enough that just the possibility of love given freely is worth the risk of every single being with free will to withhold and reject that love.

So let's look at universalism and suffering in that light. So God goes to all that trouble to create men that have free will so that love can be given freely. According to some of the universalist views above, that free will doesn't really exist. Every person will eventually come to love God, and God will use suffering to ensure that happens through a "purification" process. To me that honestly sounds like God will torture everyone until He eventually breaks their free will and they are forced to love him. You want to talk determinism? You can't get any more deterministic than that. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't sound like a very Sunday School compatible message. So for all the fact that Universalism sounds like a wonderful thing, the underlying nuts and bolts of the process make it horrific. Again, if God wanted people to love Him without a choice in the matter, then He could have just created us this way.

Now none of that answers the problem of suffering, it's just an explanation for my rejection of Universalism as horrific. I've already said that suffering is the worst possible experience in existence. But what if there is something worse? The only thing that comes to mind is complete non-existence. So if God considers complete non-existence to be the worst possible outcome, then to what lengths would He go to prevent that?

If the stakes for someone you love with a love that transcends the universe is non-existence and eternal fellowship, then really nothing would be out of bounds, right? The tricky part is that you can't compel love. As soon as you do, it's not really love anymore. So there is God, loving each of us in a way that transcends creation and fervently desiring that every single person will choose to return that love for eternity. But He knows that some people will choose to reject His love and refuse to love Him back. That's just the nature of the situation.

So getting all the way around to suffering by the long road. Real love is not easy. It comes with cost. Without consequence, love isn't love. God showed His love for us by giving the life of His only son. In the Old Testament, people showed their love for God through sacrifice, either of animals, produce, or limitations on behavior. In the New Testament, Jesus says that we should be willing to give up our wealth, our family, and our very lives to show our love. Christian martyrs are the most exhalted Christians, as they gave literally everything to show their love for God. Greater love has no man than this; that he give up his life for his friends. So in this case, suffering is like a verification. Doing something good that benefits you is just self interest. Doing something good that causes you to suffer is proof of love.

So in my reasoning, suffering is a necessary part of real love. Without suffering, love is empty and vapid. Only by choosing to do good for others or for God at great personal cost to ourselves can we really love. That explains natural suffering anyway. Things like diseases, disasters, and the ability to suffer itself. Of course, men with free will can choose to be evil and cause suffering. So the amount of suffering in the world is probably more than God intended or wanted, but that's our fault.

I think some folks would argue that never having been born at all would be way better than suffering all day every day for your entire life.

Again, this all strikes me as more than a bit aloof for folks like us...born in modern times with all the benefits and luxuries that affords to talk about how suffering is 'necessary' for God's love. I mean, help me with bone cancer in children...

We all know there are dozens of afflictions to children as horrific or worse than bone cancer. I see absolutely nothing redeeming about that suffering.

Macarthur said:

---

I think some folks would argue that never having been born at all would be way better than suffering all day every day for your entire life.

Again, this all strikes me as more than a bit aloof for folks like us...born in modern times with all the benefits and luxuries that affords to talk about how suffering is 'necessary' for God's love. I mean, help me with bone cancer in children...

We all know there are dozens of afflictions to children as horrific or worse than bone cancer. I see absolutely nothing redeeming about that suffering.

---

Yes, but suffering exists. As with most Theist/Atheist divides, it's a matter of meaning. A Theist sees meaning and purpose in everything, including suffering. An atheist sees all the same things but ascribes greater meaning to none of it. We all agree pediatric bone cancer happens, and it is horrific and terrible. To me, there is a grand underlying reason. To you, it's just a meaningless, unfortunate accident. I don't see your view as being any less horrible or more comforting than mine.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

I think some folks would argue that never having been born at all would be way better than suffering all day every day for your entire life.

Again, this all strikes me as more than a bit aloof for folks like us...born in modern times with all the benefits and luxuries that affords to talk about how suffering is 'necessary' for God's love. I mean, help me with bone cancer in children...

We all know there are dozens of afflictions to children as horrific or worse than bone cancer. I see absolutely nothing redeeming about that suffering.

---

Yes, but suffering exists. As with most Theist/Atheist divides, it's a matter of meaning. A Theist sees meaning and purpose in everything, including suffering. An atheist sees all the same things but ascribes greater meaning to none of it. We all agree pediatric bone cancer happens, and it is horrific and terrible. To me, there is a grand underlying reason. To you, it's just a meaningless, unfortunate accident. I don't see your view as being any less horrible or more comforting than mine.

---

Agree. I believe the Christian view is much more hopeful than the atheist view.

What does hope mean for Job's wife and children?

Macarthur said:

---

What does hope mean for Job's wife and children?

---

I believe in an afterlife and the Justice and mercy of God.

I think they are safe with God.

And that is why we have hope.

dermdoc said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

What does hope mean for Job's wife and children?

---

I believe in an afterlife and the Justice and mercy of God.

I think they are safe with God.

And that is why we have hope.

---

Are we sure? It's been a long time since I've read it so that detail is something I might have missed, but are you sure?

What if they were not 'saved'? Does it change things for you if they weren't?

Macarthur said:

---

I think some folks would argue that never having been born at all would be way better than suffering all day every day for your entire life.

Again, this all strikes me as more than a bit aloof for folks like us...born in modern times with all the benefits and luxuries that affords to talk about how suffering is 'necessary' for God's love. I mean, help me with bone cancer in children...

We all know there are dozens of afflictions to children as horrific or worse than bone cancer. I see absolutely nothing redeeming about that suffering.

---

Serious question: if one is an atheist, upon what basis can one assign any sort of value judgement to suffering? Absent some external, transcendent Truth against which to judge, isn't it limited to one individual's subjective experience/opinion which is only meaningful to that individual and not attributable to anyone or anything outside of that individual?

It is important to keep in mind that what we see as a"tragedy" my actually be blessing and vice versa. And sometimes the lessons we learn "the hard way" are the things that keep us for making more grave mistakes in the future.



Btw, that whole podcast interview was excellent. Can't recommend it enough.

FIDO95 said:

---

It is important to keep in mind that what we see as a"tragedy" my actually be blessing and vice versa. And sometimes the lessons we learn "the hard way" are the things that keep us for making more grave mistakes in the future.



Btw, that whole podcast interview was excellent. Can't recommend it enough.

---

Yeah, this parable has several diff forms. I like the one Philip Seymour Hoffman's character tells Charlie Wilson in Charlie Wilson's War. It's a good parable, but these things do have limits to their usefulness.

How useful is bone cancer in children? How useful is any of the several birth defects that bring about misery for the child and ultimately a very short life?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

There's too many ways to answer your question. But I made this reply in the other thread, and I think it makes a good jumping off point. Let's start with a fundamental Christian premise: a perfect God made imperfect men. How does that even happen? How does a perfect Creator create anything imperfect? Wouldn't that mean the Creator is imperfect? Perfection can only create more perfection, right? What does imperfection even mean in this case? To Christians, imperfection is sin. Sin is everything about us that is in contrast to God. Everything that is not Godly, holy, pure, love is sin and imperfect. So how does God make imperfect beings? He gives them agency and free will. People are made perfect, but they have the choice to not be perfect. This is the gist of the Adam and Eve story. God makes people perfect, wants them to be perfect, but He gives us free will and a choice. Why else would there be a forbidden tree in a perfect garden? God could have just not put the forbidden tree there, and Adam and Eve would still be living in paradise.

So why is it better to create beings with free will and choice? Why is that more perfect than unsinning, flawless automatons? The only answer I have for that is love. Love can't be forced, cajoled, imposed, or programmed. Love must be freely given, and that mandates the potential for love to be withheld. So for this to make sense, freely given love must be the greatest, most perfect thing in all creation. Enough that just the possibility of love given freely is worth the risk of every single being with free will to withhold and reject that love.

---

So, perfect God creates beings with free will. But any free will choice which deviates from God is deemed sinful and imperfect. Unless you think the afterlife is full of people that disagree with God, then this isn't real free will. We really only have free will to agree precisely with God. Literally any free will decision we make not consistent with the prescribed path is evil and wrong. The way you've described free will sounds to me like God giving His creation enough rope to hang itself. Or this describes a God that teases us by only giving us some reduced and severely limited free will.

What is the ultimate result of using our free will to deviate (sin) from God? Certainly not acceptance and approval of the choice. Ultimately, what is the result? Hell / ECT? Annihilation? Or Reconciliation? And what would reconciliation amount to? Agreeing to disagree? Probably not. More likely, your version of reconciliation with God would be for the creation to admit all incorrect choices and submit to the perfection of the Creator.

If we go through some form of reconciliation at our deaths whereby we are made to be purged of any deviations from God, then we are all simply flawless automatons meant to mindlessly worship God, but who are also given a brief meaningless moment of life with the free will to not live as such.

Say I set two dog bowls in front of my dog and put kibble in one and smoked brisket in the other with the hope the dog will choose to eat the kibble. When my dog goes for the brisket, I hit him on the nose for freely choosing the wrong food. When he goes for the brisket again, I do the same. When he's hungry enough, he'll eat the kibble. But, lets not pretend that I've given the dog a choice. I have predetermined the correct choice and while I've allowed the dog to choose the brisket, I've never really permitted the choice in any meaningful way. I've only succeeded in teasing my dog with the illusion of choice.

The dog did not choose to be born nor did it choose me to adopt it. The dog's only free will choice is to either starve or do as I command it to do. My free will choice given to me by God is to do as commanded or be tortured / annihilated / whatever happens to the non-compliant. There is no acceptance of my choices - and that is why I reject your definition of love from God.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Serious question: if one is an atheist, upon what basis can one assign any sort of value judgement to suffering? Absent some external, transcendent Truth against which to judge, isn't it limited to one individual's subjective experience/opinion which is only meaningful to that individual and not attributable to anyone or anything outside of that individual?

---

Assuming you are not an external, transcendental arbiter of Truth. . . . How do you assign value judgements if not through the subjective experience and opinion of your understanding of what said external source wants? The way we make value judgements isn't all that different.

Macarthur said:

---

I also find the idea of suffering being some sort of beautiful thing really lacking, especially against the backdrop of us modern folks that, in the grand scheme of things, have life incredibly easy by comparison.

---

I agree with this. Suffering isn't beautiful, but the result of the fall and our lack of faith in God.

If we wanted to say that when we suffer, we can find peace in our faith in God, then I think that can be supported, but suffering it self is never good.

Macarthur said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

What does hope mean for Job's wife and children?

---

I believe in an afterlife and the Justice and mercy of God.

I think they are safe with God.

And that is why we have hope.

---

Are we sure? It's been a long time since I've read it so that detail is something I might have missed, but are you sure?

What if they were not 'saved'? Does it change things for you if they weren't?

---

That is why it is called faith.

I can not make you have faith, I can only try to describe mine.

I'm actually working through a Systematics book right now and sin and creation is the topic. I thought this was applicable to the discussion:

Quote:

---

"Sin is rebellion against the will of God. God relates to the world as highest will; he creates ex nihilo by his will and command. Sin and evil, therefore, cannot imply a dualism with sin and evil opposing God as essential and natural opposites. What God created by his will is conformed to God's will; what God wills to create corresponds perfectly to his will. What opposes God, therefore, must be in rebellion against God, the establishment of a will in opposition to God's will. Sin pits human beings against their Creator.

In opposing their will to that of God, human beings bring upon themselves fundamentally a twofold effect: (1) the loss of faith; and (2) the loss and misuse of dominion, that is, the loss of love. God's will as Creator is the will to give life and all god things. For human beings, to oppose their will to God's creating will is for them to refuse to receive life as from God and to regard life as their own. Humanity no longer believes God to be the free giver of life and all that supports it, and so men and women seek to sustain their own lives and to be their own creator and god. While humanity in the image of God reflected God's own gracious freedom in the outward movement toward the other, human beings as sinners are turned to their own benefit and no longer free to serve the neighbor in love."

---

There are plenty of purposes for punishment or suffering at least in a broad sense. There isn't a logical purpose to eternal suffering, every rational reason and purpose for suffering falls apart when it's eternal.

Macarthur said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

I think some folks would argue that never having been born at all would be way better than suffering all day every day for your entire life.

Again, this all strikes me as more than a bit aloof for folks like us...born in modern times with all the benefits and luxuries that affords to talk about how suffering is 'necessary' for God's love. I mean, help me with bone cancer in children...

We all know there are dozens of afflictions to children as horrific or worse than bone cancer. I see absolutely nothing redeeming about that suffering.

---

Serious question: if one is an atheist, upon what basis can one assign any sort of value judgement to suffering? Absent some external, transcendent Truth against which to judge, isn't it limited to one individual's subjective experience/opinion which is only meaningful to that individual and not attributable to anyone or anything outside of that individual?

---

So, Atheists can't have empathy for other humans that are suffering?

---

That's not the question I asked.

You're following my train of thought exactly, and your objections naturally arise. Along these lines, the options are eternal life and annihilation. Since God is love, and His love sustains all of creation, then the rejection of His love is a rejection of being created. Like you said, we didn't ask to be created, born, and loved. But our free will gives us the choice to reject that love, reject creation, even to reject God's morality. Despite God's love for us he honors our free will by allowing us to undo his creation. We can reject Him and his wishes for us completely, but we cannot exist eternally in that way.

On the flip side, you're right as well. Once we die and are reborn for eternity, we will have much less free will than now, if any at all. Maybe the option to choose between several good and loving choices, but no more choice than that. But that is also a choice we make. We choose to be creatures of goodness and love without even the capacity for evil.

So that's how I see it. This life is about an eternal choice. The choice of eternity is either:
eternal life fill of love and goodness with minimal or no free will and complete submission to God
Or
An end to our own existence as the ultimate rejection of God and the ultimate exercise of our own free will.