Macarthur said:

---

Well, if Job's wife is suffering eternally, I would say she is def getting ripped off.

---

As I said, first of all you have to have faith and believe God is good. Otherwise, none of it makes sense.

Zobel said:

---

to be clear not all traditions teach what he's saying here.

---

Absolutely. Understood.

Wakesurfer817 said:

---

When something happens to you that seems bad at the time, but ends up being helpful what would you call that experience? Say you end up with a job that required you painfully lose the prior one. Or a relationship ends, that only with the benefit of hindsight, had to?

Was the time - and suffering - at the old job or in the old relationship worthless? Not a trick question - I am interested in how non-believers view serendipity or coincidence. Is the sum of outcomes over all humanity - or even in each life - entirely mean reverting?

---

I don't know that I have a word for it, but I recognize that suffering is a part of the human experience and that a lot of suffering has silver lining. Pain is sometimes needed for growth. We learn from our suffering. We learn empathy from our suffering. It makes us stronger. But, these are the perspectives from a non-believer. The answer of the 'suffering' question to me is maybe simpler because there is no consciousness or agency behind the original source.

If you put a billion names in a hat and pulled one name of a person to win a prize, I don't see significance or agency behind who was selected. It is a mathematic certainty that someone will be selected. Serendipity or coincidence are not significant in a sort of larger or spiritual way.

Macarthur said:

---

I think there needs to be a distinction here between challenges in one's life that we all face and gratuitous suffering. I keep wanting to talk about seemingly needless suffering of children and some of you want to talk about not getting the job promotion you were hoping for.

---

So you're trying to distinguish between types or degrees of suffering? Because not getting a job promotion for one person might entail minimal suffering, while to another, it could mean they lose their house and things could spiral downward from there.
Suffering due to ones own choices or not is going to be different for everyone. So maybe we should use a different term for the minor things....maybe being 'inconvenienced' versus true 'suffering'. There's also mental suffering and physical suffering. Two people, each born with no legs, could have different perspectives about whether they are suffering. In many ways, suffering can be caused by desire. Desire to be like other people, or to have or not have what others have. Its kind of like what the Buddhists believe...That ignorance and desire are the roots of suffering.

Yeah, I think for this conversation to have real meaning, there needs to be a distinction.

I don't think any of us non-believers would argue that hardships can very much turn out positive and can cause folks to come out of the other side of things in a better place.

And again to use my example, I don't see the suffering of a small child with bone cancer and ultimately dying a slow painful death as something that will bring about a benefit, in and of itself. I think we all here are well versed enough on history to know that there are a great many people throughout history that have suffered incredible pain and sorrow that seemed to serve no function what so ever.

Macarthur said:

---

Yeah, I think for this conversation to have real meaning, there needs to be a distinction.

I don't think any of us non-believers would argue that hardships can very much turn out positive and can cause folks to come out of the other side of things in a better place.

And again to use my example, I don't see the suffering of a small child with bone cancer and ultimately dying a slow painful death as something that will bring about a benefit, in and of itself. I think we all here are well versed enough on history to know that there are a great many people throughout history that have suffered incredible pain and sorrow that seemed to serve no function what so ever.

---

if you believe in eternal life and the sovereignty of God, it changes your perspective completely.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

DirtDiver said:

---

It's not fair that sinless Jesus has to endure separation from the Father and endure the rejection of His own creation and endure the cross to pay for my sin.

---

I know I'm repeating what I just posted a minute ago, but why did Jesus have to endure spearation and suffering to pay for your sin. What is the natural law that God and goodness and sin is all subject to that is beyond God that says this is the way for Jesus to pay for your sins? Who made that rule?

Couldn't God have created a rule that said that Jesus only had to go on a beach vacation in order to pay for our sins? Sure, it wouldn't have had any of the same affect or symbolic resonance. . . . . .

---

The "why" questions are the hardest to answer within Christianity. Why does God allow suffering, why did God make us this way, why did make the rules that He did, why did Jesus have to suffer? Sometimes the Bible directly answers these questions, sometimes we can make educated guesses, sometimes we guess and get it totally wrong and in the process become foolish (see Job's friends), and sometimes the honest answer is, "I don't know".

I've been a parent for a few years now and have rules for my child. I try to teach "why" we do things but she's too young and doesn't not have enough life experience to comprehend everything. In the areas of life that she cannot comprehend, I just need her to trust me and obey.

When it comes to our relationship with God, do we have enough information to believe that He exists and to personally put our trust in Him even though we may be left with some mystery to all of the "why" questions? For me it's a yes.

Here's my best guess at the answer from the biblical text to the question of, why did Jesus have to suffer...

1. Sin is severe and results in death. Death means both physical death and spiritual separation from God.
2. This consequence is a rule God created.
3. My guess (I could be wrong) that given God's unique, holiness, at the very core of his nature, sin is something that cannot dwell in His presence. Thus the rule would not be arbitrary, its just is, because of who He is.
4. God's desire is for us to relate to Him and our sin prevents it.
5. The severity of sin is illustrated with blood sacrifices. OT: The blood or death of animals provided a temporary covering for sin foreshadowing a better blood sacrifice. This death is the consequence of the curse.
6. The blood sacrifices of animals, while a temporary covering, was not a satisfactory payment for sin. An animal can not pay for my sins.
7. Likewise, you and I cannot pay for each other sins because we are both sinful.
8. If the sinless son of God (God incarnate) become a man, then His death could pay for all sins of all humanity for all time.
9. This payment satisfied God's wrath toward sin and provided the proper payment for the consequences of sin which is death.
10. The separation of Jesus from the Father is also a proper payment for sin as the consequence of sin is also spiritual death.

A friend hypothesized the other day that Jesus would have endured a million crucifixions over and over to never experience the separation He experienced from the Father when He bore the sins of the world.

While I could be completely wrong in my assessment above to the, "why did Jesus" have to suffer question, that inability is not a roadblock as I have the pages of Biblical History to see that God is good, we hate His authority, and that He's demonstrated His love, that while we are guilty and sinful, He would die for us to bring us into relationship with Him and one another. I can also see His faithfulness to keep His promises in history which causes me to trust that He will be faithful to keep His promises about our future and eradicate sin and death, and the curse, once and for all.

It's pretty simple.

There is suffering
There is a cause of suffering
There is an end to suffering
There is a path to end suffering.

That path is the eightfold path. It works for me.

"Can you tell me the real ending?" Kaladin asked, his voice small. "Before I go back out?" Wit stood and stepped over, then put his hand on Kaladin's back and leaned in. "That night," he said, "the little dog snuggled into a warm bed beside the fire, hugged by the farmer's children, his belly full. And as he did, the dog thought to himself, 'I doubt any dragon ever had it so good anyway.'" He smiled and met Kaladin's eyes. "It won't be like that for me," Kaladin said. "You told me it would get worse." "It will," Wit said, "but then it will get better. Then it will get worse again. Then better. This is life, and I will not lie by saying every day will be sunshine. But there will be sunshine again, and that is a very different thing to say. That is truth. I promise you, Kaladin: You will be warm again."

Great response to pain and suffering in Rhythm of War.

" 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."

+++

This is an unfortunate view of a loving God. Mainly because of the premise that both choices are inherently good. This example would not be as troubling if say one of the choices was poison and the other not.

If however, the example is between a good and a much better good, this is already answered in the belief that God desires man to have the best (heaven or smoked brisket).

Maybe you can explain your rational with using two good choices?

" 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."

+++

Another unfortunate view of a loving Creator (God) who we believe desires for each of us only happiness and complete fulfillment. We believe this is fully realized in his presence (heaven). We call this joy.

Can we experience pleasure outside of the presence of God? Yes. The question is for how long? Also, will this short lived pleasure sustain us for eternity? What are the consequences for freely choosing this pleasure?

Maybe it is the over simplification in your analogy, but there are real consequences to every choice don't you agree? If then, God truly desires the best for us, does it not make sense that some things we think are good for us may not really be in the long run? Would not a good and loving father guide his children on a better path?

ETA: Heaven is full of people that want to be there.

There is an old lie that keeps resurfacing in various forms, however, it basically goes like this, "God the father, does not love you enough to give you everything you want."

Cunning if you think about it- who doesn't want an unlimited supply of nachos, soda, and Xbox?

Recently, the wife and I binged Cobra-Kai on Netflix only to feel like we ate some bad pizza. I lost a whole weekend of my time and while it was fun, I think I enjoyed that movie more when I was younger.

In the end, what Jesus (God incarnate) came down to testify was a Creator's infinite love for his creation. God desires the best for us. Should he snap his fingers so that we have it instantly? I don't think we could appreciate the gift if we don't also desire the same, that takes time

What some see as limits on free will is really a choice to trust God and believe that his way is the best way.

PabloSerna said:

---

There is an old lie that keeps resurfacing in various forms, however, it basically goes like this, "God the father, does not love you enough to give you everything you want."

Cunning if you think about it- who doesn't want an unlimited supply of nachos, soda, and Xbox?

Recently, the wife and I binged Cobra-Kai on Netflix only to feel like we ate some bad pizza. I lost a whole weekend of my time and while it was fun, I think I enjoyed that movie more when I was younger.

In the end, what Jesus (God incarnate) came down to testify was a Creator's infinite love for his creation. God desires the best for us. Should he snap his fingers so that we have it instantly? I don't think we could appreciate the gift if we don't also desire the same, that takes time

What some see as limits on free will is really a choice to trust God and believe that his way is the best way.

---

But he could snap his fingers and make all his creation appreciate it and be in full fellowship w all his creation. The way it is set up now, a significant portion of his creation will suffer eternally or at least no exist depending on how you believe.

"We can ignore even pleasure. But pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world."

-C.S. Lewis in The Problem of Pain

This is a great book on the subject to get an overall look at the general Christian approach to this issue.

Macarthur said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

There is an old lie that keeps resurfacing in various forms, however, it basically goes like this, "God the father, does not love you enough to give you everything you want."

Cunning if you think about it- who doesn't want an unlimited supply of nachos, soda, and Xbox?

Recently, the wife and I binged Cobra-Kai on Netflix only to feel like we ate some bad pizza. I lost a whole weekend of my time and while it was fun, I think I enjoyed that movie more when I was younger.

In the end, what Jesus (God incarnate) came down to testify was a Creator's infinite love for his creation. God desires the best for us. Should he snap his fingers so that we have it instantly? I don't think we could appreciate the gift if we don't also desire the same, that takes time

What some see as limits on free will is really a choice to trust God and believe that his way is the best way.

---

But he could snap his fingers and make all his creation appreciate it and be in full fellowship w all his creation. The way it is set up now, a significant portion of his creation will suffer eternally or at least no exist depending on how you believe.

---

Would that really show love?

Seems to me God loves us so much that He allows us to use our free will to choose to accept Him or reject Him.

AgLiving06 said:

---

"Can you tell me the real ending?" Kaladin asked, his voice small. "Before I go back out?" Wit stood and stepped over, then put his hand on Kaladin's back and leaned in. "That night," he said, "the little dog snuggled into a warm bed beside the fire, hugged by the farmer's children, his belly full. And as he did, the dog thought to himself, 'I doubt any dragon ever had it so good anyway.'" He smiled and met Kaladin's eyes. "It won't be like that for me," Kaladin said. "You told me it would get worse." "It will," Wit said, "but then it will get better. Then it will get worse again. Then better. This is life, and I will not lie by saying every day will be sunshine. But there will be sunshine again, and that is a very different thing to say. That is truth. I promise you, Kaladin: You will be warm again."

Great response to pain and suffering in Rhythm of War.

---

Wit is the best character of any character of all time

Wit is great, I wish he was as prominent in other books as he is in stormlight

Aggrad08 said:

---

Wit is great, I wish he was as prominent in other books as he is in stormlight

---

I think Sanderson said in an AMA that there will be an entire overarching series that will tie in the entire universe based on Hoid that will be his magnum opus. Apparently it will involve an intense hatred with Kelsier

PabloSerna said:

---

" 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."

+++

This is an unfortunate view of a loving God. Mainly because of the premise that both choices are inherently good. This example would not be as troubling if say one of the choices was poison and the other not.

If however, the example is between a good and a much better good, this is already answered in the belief that God desires man to have the best (heaven or smoked brisket).

Maybe you can explain your rational with using two good choices?

---

The fact that you think my analogy includes two good choices might help demonstrate my point.

In the analogy, I offer two choices, one is right and one is wrong. Your opinion / the dogs opinion on the goodness of the wrong choice is irrelevant. All that matters is what the dog's owner (God) considers the right choice. Brisket is the wrong choice and is therefore a bad choice. An evil choice. It doesn't matter how good you think it is or how much you enjoy it.

I think this is a problem I have with religious morality. All of your personal preferences, all of your own introspections, experiences, everything - it's all irrelevant. God decides what is good and you must get on board. There is no choice.

I appreciate this side track. I read the storm light books years ago and had no idea the 4th one was released a couple years ago. Ordering it from Amazon now . . . .

PabloSerna said:

---

Maybe it is the over simplification in your analogy, but there are real consequences to every choice don't you agree? If then, God truly desires the best for us, does it not make sense that some things we think are good for us may not really be in the long run? Would not a good and loving father guide his children on a better path?

ETA: Heaven is full of people that want to be there.

---

Do we get to choose what is best for us? Or is that already predetermined?

Don't let me put words in your mouth, but I'm basing this on your objections on this thread. From what I can tell, you object to the Christian idea of God because:

1) you can't choose what is good and not good
2) you don't automatically get eternal happiness
3) suffering exists for you and others

The only way 1,2 and 3 can all happen is if you were God. So I can't help reading your objections throughout the thread as you basically not liking the idea that there is a God out there and that God isn't you.

The issue with item #1 is that the Christian God presumably gives us diversity of thought and mind and taste and creativity and biology and then we are commanded to all be the same.

Regarding #2, it isn't that I expect automatic eternal happiness. I object to the conditions on which it's offered.

And for 3, I object to suffering as being the only or best way for humans to become what we are meant to become.

And I certainly don't want to be God. But, if there is God, I sorta hope it's less 'my way or the highway'.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The issue with item #1 is that the Christian God presumably gives us diversity of thought and mind and taste and creativity and biology and then we are commanded to all be the same.

Regarding #2, it isn't that I expect automatic eternal happiness. I object to the conditions on which it's offered.

And for 3, I object to suffering as being the only or best way for humans to become what we are meant to become.

And I certainly don't want to be God. But, if there is God, I sorta hope it's less 'my way or the highway'.

---

In my opinion, God is God. And I am not.

I can not change Him so He fits my views better.

He created me, I can not create Him

AGC said:

---

On what basis can/do you object that does not center yourself in God's position?

---

I don't think I understand your argument that my position does center me as God.

Wanting to think for myself means I am playing God?

dermdoc said:

---

In my opinion, God is God. And I am not.

I can not change Him so He fits my views better.

He created me, I can not create Him

---

I thought God didn't want mindless automatons?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

In my opinion, God is God. And I am not.

I can not change Him so He fits my views better.

He created me, I can not create Him

---

I thought God didn't want mindless automatons?

---

He does not. But you can not change God into what you want him to be be.

dermdoc said:

---

He does not. But you can not change God into what you want him to be be.

---

That feels ironic. You believe that God created us and that we are called to abandon our own reason in order to fully submit to God's.

Wouldn't it be nice if God accepted us for who he made us rather than create us sick and order us well?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

He does not. But you can not change God into what you want him to be be.

---

That feels ironic. You believe that God created us and that we are called to abandon our own reason in order to fully submit to God's.

Wouldn't it be nice if God accepted us for who he made us rather than create us sick and order us well?

---

I never said that we should abandon our own reason.

God does accept us for who we are. It is up to us to receive His grace and love.

He does not "order" us well. He wants to make us well because He loves us.

And what happens if we use our reason and conclude something different from what God tells us? And what if we decide that who we are is not what God wants us to be?

What good is logic and reason if it can only be accepted when it supports presupposes conclusions?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

And what happens if we use our reason and conclude something different from what God tells us? And what if we decide that who we are is not what God wants us to be?

What good is logic and reason if it can only be accepted when it supports presupposes conclusions?

---

Your first question seems to me that you have searched for God and using your logic and reason rejected Him.

As for your second one, God created us to be who we are. He loves us. You can use your free will and logic to reject Him.

Your last question kind of answers itself. We use our logic and reason to either reject or accept God.

It sounds like you have investigated and used your logic, reason, and free will to reject God.

Please forgive me if I am not understanding your thoughts.

Let's go with an example: the morality or immorality of 'x'.

Let's say that the sum of my reasoning, personal opinions, life experiences, etc tells me that 'x' is a moral action. The Christian position could be that God considers 'x' to be immoral. The Christian position (correct me if I am wrong) is that God's commandment overrides. Therefore, all reason, logic, life experience, anything at all that suggests something different from God is faulty. It's the ultimate in confirmation bias and devaluing of human experience and philosophy to say that only logic and reason and experience that affirms God should be accepted.

Of course, I don't believe in God. So, what I wrote above should not be read as anger or frustration with something I don't believe in. Rather, this is a viewpoint of mine and part of why I feel adverse to philosophy of Christianity.

Christianity suggests a God that gives us reason and uniqueness and capacity for different experience and we are meant to all reach identical solutions. . . . If God wanted us to all reach the same conclusions, He would have made us all the same.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Let's go with an example: the morality or immorality of 'x'.

Let's say that the sum of my reasoning, personal opinions, life experiences, etc tells me that 'x' is a moral action. The Christian position could be that God considers 'x' to be immoral. The Christian position (correct me if I am wrong) is that God's commandment overrides. Therefore, all reason, logic, life experience, anything at all that suggests something different from God is faulty. It's the ultimate in confirmation bias and devaluing of human experience and philosophy to say that only logic and reason and experience that affirms God should be accepted.

Of course, I don't believe in God. So, what I wrote above should not be read as anger or frustration with something I don't believe in. Rather, this is a viewpoint of mine and part of why I feel adverse to philosophy of Christianity.

Christianity suggests a God that gives us reason and uniqueness and capacity for different experience and we are meant to all reach identical solutions. . . . If God wanted us to all reach the same conclusions, He would have made us all the same.

---

So if I understand you correctly, you are establishing your own morality based upon your logic?

Where does that conflict with what God says?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Let's go with an example: the morality or immorality of 'x'.

Let's say that the sum of my reasoning, personal opinions, life experiences, etc tells me that 'x' is a moral action. The Christian position could be that God considers 'x' to be immoral. The Christian position (correct me if I am wrong) is that God's commandment overrides. Therefore, all reason, logic, life experience, anything at all that suggests something different from God is faulty. It's the ultimate in confirmation bias and devaluing of human experience and philosophy to say that only logic and reason and experience that affirms God should be accepted.

Of course, I don't believe in God. So, what I wrote above should not be read as anger or frustration with something I don't believe in. Rather, this is a viewpoint of mine and part of why I feel adverse to philosophy of Christianity.

Christianity suggests a God that gives us reason and uniqueness and capacity for different experience and we are meant to all reach identical solutions. . . . If God wanted us to all reach the same conclusions, He would have made us all the same.

---

I sympathize with this a bit. Take the popular idea of hell, for instance. Someone dies and suffers unimaginable torture for eternity. There are many, many Christian preachers, priests, pastors, theologians, and luminaries of the various branches of Christianity that all believe this to be the case. However, the sum of my reasoning, personal opinions, life experiences, etc tell me that a God that tortures even one person for eternity is an awful monster and could never be considered good. Much less one that tortures the majority of humanity for eternity for pretty much no reason. Throw in the fact the God created men, created the universe, set all the rules, and basically controls everything, and the whole idea gets worse by orders of magnitude.

However, this is not a breaking point from Christianity. Beliefs about eternal punishment might be enough to get me kicked out of a fundamentalist church, but otherwise it's not really a big deal. It's not the point of Christianity. It's tangential. So I'm not really sure what your hang up is specifically, but it's probably not as incompatible with Christianity in general as you imagine it to be.