Quote:

---

and didn't give him a choice about whether to be malicious or not.

---

He could have carried out the sentence without malice.

Aggrad08 said:

---

God doesn't get to free himself of intension. There is nothing outside his intent when it comes to nature with perhaps the exception of conscious will.

God sending an earthquake is like men sending a bomb, everything that happened was completely in his control.

Gos is the architect of death and suffering, it's without question. So then to your point, what about the death and suffering god created makes it good?

---

I absolutely agree with all of this except God being the architect of death, but that's a nit pick. To answer your question: to me there is no doubt that God cares very little about our lives on Earth, our bodily integrity, or our comfort. So why all the suffering? The Christian analogy is the refining of metal. You take metal ore, heat it to melting, and beat it. Either the metal comes out purified and useful, or it gets destroyed in the process. So it is with suffering. Suffering can make someone humble, gracious and empathetic. Or it can make someone miserly, hateful, and cruel. Two people may live very similar lives until they are made to suffer. Then one becomes a better person and one becomes worse. It's the application of suffering that tells the difference.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

and didn't give him a choice about whether to be malicious or not.

---

He could have carried out the sentence without malice.

---

In that case, you are correct. God is the authority and the sin lies solely with the executioner. I still don't see how this relates to my question.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

and didn't give him a choice about whether to be malicious or not.

---

He could have carried out the sentence without malice.

---

In that case, you are correct. God is the authority and the sin lies solely with the executioner. I still don't see how this relates to my question.

---

Maybe I misunderstood your question.

A short response as I do not have time to provide more depth.

All growth requires some level of suffering.

Suffering is subjective and variable.

It can provide a perspective not otherwise available.

The reason "good times make weak men" is because the challenges that would cause growth are no longer there.

I do not presume to say that there is a reason for all suffering, but I do know that if there is absolutely zero suffering, there would be no growth and no improvement.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Bob_Ag said:

---

God allows evil, but he's not the author of it. In fact, moral and spiritual evil are actions of transgression against God. But yes, like Joseph and his brothers, they intended something for evil while God used it for good. All things happen according to the counsel of his will and he is always perfectly in control no matter how hard that is for us to understand. Even in calamity.

---

Aren't you a Calvinist? How can God allow evil but not author it if only God has free will?

Also, a clear definition of evil always helps these things. Sometimes evil means suffering, hardship, and pain. Sometimes evil means cruelty, hatred, and sin. Makes a big difference when talking about it

---

Because evil in its essence is an action, not a thing. Evil is transgression against God. It's the act of lawlessness and sin. Therefore, God in his very own nature of being incompatible with sin, cannot author evil because he is holy.

Are you trying to say a sovereign god can't judge the evil actions of men because he is sovereign? Have you read the book of Genesis? It's pretty clear that God not only proved his authority and complete dominion over all things but at the same time judged the evil actions of Adam and Eve. Man can choose to sin and God can and will judge accordingly. What you are confusing is the concept of autonomy and free will. Man and God can't both be sovereign. It's a logical fallacy.

Bob_Ag said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Bob_Ag said:

---

God allows evil, but he's not the author of it. In fact, moral and spiritual evil are actions of transgression against God. But yes, like Joseph and his brothers, they intended something for evil while God used it for good. All things happen according to the counsel of his will and he is always perfectly in control no matter how hard that is for us to understand. Even in calamity.

---

Aren't you a Calvinist? How can God allow evil but not author it if only God has free will?

Also, a clear definition of evil always helps these things. Sometimes evil means suffering, hardship, and pain. Sometimes evil means cruelty, hatred, and sin. Makes a big difference when talking about it

---

Because evil in its essence is an action, not a thing. Evil is transgression against God. It's the act of lawlessness and sin. Therefore, God in his very own nature of being incompatible with sin, cannot author evil because he is holy.

Are you trying to say a sovereign god can't judge the evil actions of men because he is sovereign? Have you read the book of Genesis? It's pretty clear that God not only proved his authority and complete dominion over all things but at the same time judged the evil actions of Adam and Eve. Man can choose to sin and God can and will judge accordingly. What you are confusing is the concept of autonomy and free will. Man and God can't both be sovereign. It's a logical fallacy.

---

Ok, can man choose not to sin?

Macarthur said:

---

So much pain and suffering to 'advance his agenda'. Either he has the power to fix it and doesn't or doesn't have the power to fix it. Either way, it's not a good reflection on him.

---

God's primary (if not sole) concern is the choice everyone must make relative to His son. He rejoices when one accepts Jesus, but is greatly saddened when one rejects Him. How you and I exist (live and die) are secondary considerations in His plan for His creation. All will rise and face His judgment, then live in or outside His presence. What's singularly important is your choice. He will not forcibly drag anyone in either direction.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

All growth requires some level of suffering.

---

Who made that rule?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Bob_Ag said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Bob_Ag said:

---

God allows evil, but he's not the author of it. In fact, moral and spiritual evil are actions of transgression against God. But yes, like Joseph and his brothers, they intended something for evil while God used it for good. All things happen according to the counsel of his will and he is always perfectly in control no matter how hard that is for us to understand. Even in calamity.

---

Aren't you a Calvinist? How can God allow evil but not author it if only God has free will?

Also, a clear definition of evil always helps these things. Sometimes evil means suffering, hardship, and pain. Sometimes evil means cruelty, hatred, and sin. Makes a big difference when talking about it

---

Because evil in its essence is an action, not a thing. Evil is transgression against God. It's the act of lawlessness and sin. Therefore, God in his very own nature of being incompatible with sin, cannot author evil because he is holy.

Are you trying to say a sovereign god can't judge the evil actions of men because he is sovereign? Have you read the book of Genesis? It's pretty clear that God not only proved his authority and complete dominion over all things but at the same time judged the evil actions of Adam and Eve. Man can choose to sin and God can and will judge accordingly. What you are confusing is the concept of autonomy and free will. Man and God can't both be sovereign. It's a logical fallacy.

---

Ok, can man choose not to sin?

---

Sure, but that's not the right question you want to ask. It's will man choose or not choose to sin. And if man chooses to sin, why did he not choose to do what is right?

Man chooses based on his inclination or disposition. People always make decisions based on some level of bias or prejudice.

The Bible tells us Man's disposition:

Quote:

---

"None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ro 3:1012.

---

You are caught up in whether man can make decisions freely, of course he can. But can he do it without the influence of some deterministic cause? Of course not. Then we have to ask as it relates to morality what will man choose? And if man has free will, then why do we choose to do bad things?

Man sins because man is fallen.

ok, my bad. I erroneously thought you were Calvinist and believed in total depravity. Carry on and don't mind me

God "advances" - why that word and not "permits"?

Will the idea that God permits, allows man's freewill or natural disasters to happen change your view?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

ok, my bad. I erroneously thought you were Calvinist and believed in total depravity. Carry on and don't mind me

---

I am a Calvinist and I do believe in total depravity.

"but I do know that if there is absolutely zero suffering, there would be no growth and no improvement."

Is there suffering in heaven?

You make it sound like God has no idea if one will suffer well or suffer badly- is that correct?

If God is God, then by definition God is all powerful. So to answer the first part of your question - God has the power. Why God permits suffering is really the question being posed here. Salvation is the only answer that makes sense else there is no God. But that (existence of God) is easier to understand than why God permits suffering.

PabloSerna said:

---

"but I do know that if there is absolutely zero suffering, there would be no growth and no improvement."

Is there suffering in heaven?

---

It is interesting that you ask that.

This is something I am unsure of with regard to the concept of heaven.

So much of what makes humans happy and fulfilled involves overcoming obstacles, seeking and reaching goals, learning and growing. All of which involve at least some level of "suffering" (that is, difficulty, pain, risk, etc...)

I assume it must be my failing, but I cannot envision being "eternally happy" if there is no risk of failure; no learning, no opportunity for growth; nothing to anticipate, etc....

So I wonder if Heaven doesn't involve some level of challenge. How quickly would one get completely bored and disengaged if every thought and whim you had just happened with no effort?

I see "suffering" as relative. If you live a life of luxury, what you consider as "suffering" would be much different than the person who struggles to get by. One person's suffering is another person's luxury. How will that manifest in heaven?

Aggrad08 said:

---

God doesn't get to free himself of intension. There is nothing outside his intent when it comes to nature with perhaps the exception of conscious will.

God sending an earthquake is like men sending a bomb, everything that happened was completely in his control.

God is the architect of death and suffering, it's without question. So then to your point, what about the death and suffering god created makes it good?

---

I do not know what we can say God sending an earth quake is the correct term however it's within His power to prevent it. It's also a result of the curse. Why was the world cursed?

What we do know:
1. The result of mankind's rebellion against God was death. Spiritual death and physical death for all of humanity.
2. Creation was cursed. IE, earthquakes, Tsunami's, tornadoes, floods.
3. Humanity and creation all both currently cursed.

We have all seen a plethora of evidence in our lifetime of how our sinful behavior has had a negative impact on others: murder, hatred, adultery, disobedience to parents, lying, cheating, stealing. It's hard to see how our sinful behavior has had an impact on us spiritually and the impact it's had on creation because all we have ever known is life under the curse.

4. Death is considered an enemy of God.
5. He does not delight in the death of the wicked.
6. Death will be abolished
7. The curse will be removed.

The creation cursed:
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

The future: Curse Free
Rev. 22:2-4 On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him; 4 they will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads.

Death abolished:
25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.

YEC beliefs are the only way to entertain this view. It's so contrary to so much clear scientific knowledge that it inspires pity every time I hear it.

The fossil record is unequivocal, death predates man. No assertion of a flood, no magic besides deception, nothing you can attest to explains when human remains never, and I mean never, are in any of the many many older layers that would indicate men where there in the beginning or even anything close.

We can't blame the fall for death or catastrophe and be scientifically aware.

So then the question arises why does god put forth a system requiring billions of year of violent suffering and allow humans to be born into that system?

PabloSerna said:

---

You make it sound like God has no idea if one will suffer well or suffer badly- is that correct?

---

That's correct, at least in my view. The short version is that God doesn't know what decisions we will make until we make them. If you want more detail I can probably link to pages and pages I've written here before.

Just to be clear, God uses both good fortune and misfortune both to divide the wheat from the chaff. Some people do well when things are going well but become horrible when things go badly. Some people suffer well but become horrible people when they prosper.

Aggrad08 said:

---

YEC beliefs are the only way to entertain this view. It's so contrary to so much clear scientific knowledge that it inspires pity every time I hear it.

The fossil record is unequivocal, death predates man. No assertion of a flood, no magic besides deception, nothing you can attest to explains when human remains never, and I mean never, are in any of the many many older layers that would indicate men where there in the beginning or even anything close.

We can't blame the fall for death or catastrophe and be scientifically aware.

So then the question arises why does god put forth a system requiring billions of year of violent suffering and allow humans to be born into that system?

---

The scientific knowledge you speak of I think is a religion and faith in and of itself. There are theories based on philosophical presuppositions that God does not exist.

If I assume no God, no judgement, no flood, then I have to think of ways to explain our existence. The reason billions and millions of years are injected into this view if because we have to imagine things happened in ways that we cannot scientifically observe or replicate.

When one asks: What would be expect to observe today if the creation happened according to the biblical account and and a global flood covered the entire earth for over 150 days with waters as high as mountains and the earth being cursed?

My faith is not strong enough to believe in billions of years of earth's history.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

ok, my bad. I erroneously thought you were Calvinist and believed in total depravity. Carry on and don't mind me

---

Perhaps you can expand on this and why you think total depravity is incompatible with my response?

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"but I do know that if there is absolutely zero suffering, there would be no growth and no improvement."

Is there suffering in heaven?

---

It is interesting that you ask that.

This is something I am unsure of with regard to the concept of heaven.

So much of what makes humans happy and fulfilled involves overcoming obstacles, seeking and reaching goals, learning and growing. All of which involve at least some level of "suffering" (that is, difficulty, pain, risk, etc...)

I assume it must be my failing, but I cannot envision being "eternally happy" if there is no risk of failure; no learning, no opportunity for growth; nothing to anticipate, etc....

So I wonder if Heaven doesn't involve some level of challenge. How quickly would one get completely bored and disengaged if every thought and whim you had just happened with no effort?

I see "suffering" as relative. If you live a life of luxury, what you consider as "suffering" would be much different than the person who struggles to get by. One person's suffering is another person's luxury. How will that manifest in heaven?

---

Interesting post and I agree.

Winning in a game would not mean much if you always won and couldn't lose.

Quote:

---

The scientific knowledge you speak of I think is a religion and faith in and of itself. There are theories based on philosophical presuppositions that God does not exist.

---

This just isn't true. Its a well propagated lie in YEC circles but it falls apart under the slightest examination. The theories developed are based upon the scientific method. If you use that method, the assertions of YECs simply fall apart. It's no different than the foundations of our other scientific findings.

If the actual physical evidence pointed towards a literal biblical interpretation, literalist Christians would love science. They would start their apologetics with physical evidence, well founded scientific theories, and the near absolute consensus of virtually every university in the first world.

It would be at the very heart of apologetics, they would delight in children's science classes and textbooks and confidently challenge atheists to explain away such things as coincidence. Scientist would be disproportionally Christian due to more intimate knowledge of just how well using the scientific method points to the Bible as literal truth.

That's not the world we live in. Not even a little.

Quote:

---

If I assume no God, no judgement, no flood, then I have to think of ways to explain our existence.

---

The problem is judgement and flood don't explain what we observe. The early scientists went looking expecting to find such evidence and didn't. The flood hypothesis was tested and failed at every single turn.

Quote:

---

When one asks: What would be expect to observe today if the creation happened according to the biblical account and and a global flood covered the entire earth for over 150 days with waters as high as mountains and the earth being cursed?

---

We did ask this. It failed. So we asked other questions and made other hypotheses that didn't fail. That made accurate predictions. There are many thousands of Christians who are scientists, you think none of them thought that all the data they observed could be explained by a literal biblical interpretation?

It's nothing more than a conspiracy theory with Christian's in on it to believe such a view.

Quote:

---

My faith is not strong enough to believe in billions of years of earth's history.

---

It's just well founded well evidenced science. If it didn't contradict your faith you'd likely never have questioned it and if you did you'd accept the overwhelming and obvious evidence as just that.

If you want to look at how this ends when we talk specifically about the science, see any of a myriad of YEC threads.

But I'm not even your problem, most your fellow Christians don't accept your assertions, especially as their educational achievement advances. Probably start with them.

For the purposes of this thread I'll be maintaining the question of the justification of suffering and death in a manner consistent with obvious scientific fact.

Which is to say, death and suffering predate mankind by an incredible amount of time. And their is no thoughtful way to place that suffering at the feet of men.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

God doesn't get to free himself of intension. There is nothing outside his intent when it comes to nature with perhaps the exception of conscious will.

God sending an earthquake is like men sending a bomb, everything that happened was completely in his control.

Gos is the architect of death and suffering, it's without question. So then to your point, what about the death and suffering god created makes it good?

---

I absolutely agree with all of this except God being the architect of death, but that's a nit pick. To answer your question: to me there is no doubt that God cares very little about our lives on Earth, our bodily integrity, or our comfort. So why all the suffering? The Christian analogy is the refining of metal. You take metal ore, heat it to melting, and beat it. Either the metal comes out purified and useful, or it gets destroyed in the process. So it is with suffering. Suffering can make someone humble, gracious and empathetic. Or it can make someone miserly, hateful, and cruel. Two people may live very similar lives until they are made to suffer. Then one becomes a better person and one becomes worse. It's the application of suffering that tells the difference.

---

I was talking about the suffering and death that predates mankind's existence as being clearly not our fault. I wasn't engaging with any original sin arguments or exactly what you call the first humans to blame their suffering on themselves.

But to your second point. I do agree that in growth, refinement and perseverance suffering has a reasonable utility.

The problem is there is so much seemingly pointless suffering. Suffering with no obvious utility or resulting growth. Or suffering which could be replaced with other forms of hardship which would better facilitate growth.

In short, I think the evidentiary problem of evil is much stronger than the logical problem of evil.

I actually don't disagree much with the points of your second post. But I consider those very far from the points of your first post.

There being a reason for suffering has a basic explanation to an extent. Although if we accept that premise it raises the question of if there is suffering in heaven.

That's a far cry from the first post where god is absolved from the responsibility for suffering. Which I consider a very weak argument.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

All growth requires some level of suffering.

---

Who made that rule?

---

Yeah.

Another element to this is I suppose I can understand if god causes some level of suffering to make us better, but some of the responses referenced the suffering of others that helped someone "better themselves" in some way. I have a real moral struggle if someone has to die or suffer to make me a better person.

I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the Lord, do all these things. Isiah 45 vs 7

Macarthur said:

---

So much pain and suffering to 'advance his agenda'. Either he has the power to fix it and doesn't or doesn't have the power to fix it. Either way, it's not a good reflection on him.

---

You're forgetting your own role in perpetuating evil and suffering. And it's Gods Grace and Mercy you aren't dealt with immediately upon your first instance of evil or causing suffering. You're mocking tbe very Grace of God that keeps you breathing offering moments upon moments to repent.

Exactly what role have I played in children getting bone cancer? Man, God set this up wonderfully for himself. He's all powerful and set this whole thing up and also convinced us that when his plan isn't perfect, it's actually our fault. The original gaslighter.

Macarthur said:

---

Exactly what role have I played in children getting bone cancer? Man, God set this up wonderfully for himself. He's all powerful and set this whole thing up and also convinced us that when his plan isn't perfect, it's actually our fault. The original gaslighter.

---

You believe you've never caused anyone to suffer?

Sure but we're talking about gratuitous and seemingly needless suffering on a large scale. Me being an AHole (the flaws God made me w, BTW) is not really the "suffering" that's being kicked around here.

So you're the arbiter of what suffering isn't allowed and what others should have to suffer through. Interesting you make the distinction at the suffering you cause. Funny how that works isn't it? Blaming God for allowing people to suffer but the suffering you cause should be sustained by those who had to suffer.

The reality is we all are causing others to suffer. We also don't know the true impact our words and actions have on the lives of others. It's by Gods grace and mercy alone He is long suffering and not dolling out justice the moment we error. But justice is coming. Do not be so quick to mock Gods grace with you.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

So you're the arbiter of what suffering isn't allowed and what others should have to suffer through. Interesting you make the distinction at the suffering you cause. Funny how that works isn't it? Blaming God for allowing people to suffer but the suffering you cause should be sustained by those who had to suffer.

The reality is we all are causing others to suffer. We also don't know the true impact our words and actions have on the lives of others. It's by Gods grace and mercy alone He is long suffering and not dolling out justice the moment we error. But justice is coming. Do not be so quick to mock Gods grace with you.

---

What do I have to do with kids getting bone cancer? How about the any number of horrific birth defects?

I never said I'm perfect but laying blame for the above things on mankind is silly.