Why don’t more Christians invoke a JW-style “Satan argument” when debating why God allows suffering?

by Half a Person 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Deputy Dog

  Half a Person

  I can sort of understand this, but it does make God seem a bit… Well, nasty. And things like earthquakes and terminal illness are quite arbitrary in who they target. It’s like God has walked up to humanity with a machine gun and is just randomly firing into the crowd.

  It might seem that way to you, but, God is in control and knows exactly who will be hurt, killed in any disaster. He is also responsible for every survivor. I don't believe ANYTHING is arbtrary.

  “You all deserve to die! [MACHINE GUN FIRE] You should count yourselves lucky if you escape! [MACHINE GUN FIRE] P.S. Come and worship me.”

  We do deserve to die. I don't believe in "luck". I do believe in the sovereign hand of God. So if anyone "escapes" it is only by the GRACE of God.

  bluecanary

  Deputy Dog I'm glad I don't serve your God. He sounds like a jerk. Reminds me of Bill Cosby, "I brought you into this world and I can take you out!"

  Well bluecanary you and designs you are so wonderful you think God owes you For letting you live in His universe, don't you.

  I like "Coz"
• 

  glenster

  Why serve a God who isn't an all-beneficent God who has everyone live in
  heavenly circumstances forever?
  
  The idea goes God's allows free will--tried it with angels, for whom God is
  directly before them so it's obvious from their circumstances that following God
  is the good deal, and people on Earth, whom we know aren't all-beneficent
  people living on an all-beneficent Earth. The Earth has the freedom to be good
  or bad, too.
  
  Sympathy for the Deity
  
  Before you decide God doesn't have the good judgment to preside over a world
  that's the equal of people that are all-beneficent, look at some of the things
  about the human prospects in the groups of links at the next link.
  http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id58.html
  
  Imagine three tiers of quality of beings: God > people > animals.
  
  I'll make a bad analogy between God and people and people and animals. ("Peo-
  ple aren't animals." "Have you ever eaten with one?"--paraphrase from "The Pro-
  ducers.")
  
  You're a rancher. A lot of the tan cows are killing the brown cows, the brown
  cows are killing the yellow cows, the cows that moo twice are killing the cows
  that moo once who are killing the cows that don't moo but jangle the bell around
  their necks. Some cows hog the food so others don't get any or at least won't
  move it closer to the ones who can't reach it. A lot of them are anti-rancher.
  
  A cow might look at all the hardships and say life sucks, and another cow
  might see all the same things yet be glad for their shot at life and what good
  they found in it. There's no credible concept of an all-beneficent rancher (or
  cows or ranch) or that choice wouldn't exist. If either consider the rancher,
  there's only how each of the two regard the idea of the rancher presiding over
  it all. If one serves the rancher, it's not for being deluded that it's an all-
  beneficent ranch anymore than they'd have to see and all-beneficent ranch to be
  glad for their shot at life on a ranch without a rancher.
  
  A guy who's trying to overtake your support from the cows comes by and says to
  be a good enough to be a rancher you'd have to be like he would and have all
  those cows live like close family in your ranch house.
  
  It would be a mistake to blame that guy for all the hardships in the world.
  He just contributes to them as a son from the rancher's dysfunctional family
  who's seen as presiding over those who decide life sucks and to forget the
  rancher.
  
  You might call it cruel and you might call it callous, but you were thinking,
  "Some hamburgers would go good about now." Still, you decide to bring some cows
  into the house even though you know most people, if they could be ranchers,
  would never think they'd want even one cow living in their ranch house, rescue
  one from an animal shelter or medical lab, or even have the sick ones in the
  house when you can use the barn for that, but they think it's their prerogative
  to consider themselves as making good ranchers. They have some self-esteem
  about who they'd have live in their house, but you're not supposed to have any--
  how did you get stuck? That guy who came by doesn't even have a house.
  
  Poor God.
• 

  bluecanary

  Well bluecanary you and designs you are so wonderful you think God owes you For letting you live in His universe, don't you.

  I don't think a God exists at all. But if he did, hell yes, he would owe us the same as parents owe their children more than the "gift of life" at conception and birth. If God was a human he'd be put in prison for criminal neglect.
• 

  bluecanary

  Really Deputy, I find your statement to be absolutely ridiculous. I give birth to a baby. So I can just leave it then, content that I gave it the gift of life. What's it crying about? Is it not satisfied with the wonderful gift I gave it? After all, I'm it's creator, I owe it nothing. Yeah, if there's a god out there that feels that way, he's can do that; I can't stop him. But I can flip him the finger while I go on to treat lower creatures with more compassion. I cannot believe anyone would defend such a character.
• 

  Half a Person

  @DeputyDog

  It might seem that way to you, but, God is in control and knows exactly who will be hurt, killed in any disaster. He is also responsible for every survivor. I don't believe ANYTHING is arbtrary.

  Whoa, sorry I but I can’t believe that. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but there’s no way I could watch the news, see a disaster and say “They had it coming to them.”

  We do deserve to die.

  We are all *going* to die, unfortunately, which is something I had to accept (with difficulty) when I rejected the JW belief system. But believing that we *deserve* to die sounds exactly like the sort of thing that would destroy a person’s self-esteem. I know I always felt guilty as a JW because I could never meet their (impossibly high?) standards. I felt like I deserved to die, and I think that this belief suppressed me - rather than helping me - as a person.

  @glenster

  the cows that moo twice are killing the cows that moo once

  Yeah I think war is stupid as well.

  A lot of them are anti-rancher.

  Hm. Are these by any chance Evil Atheist Cows? Because my position isn’t that I *hate* [the] God [of the bible], rather it’s that I don’t think he exists. Let’s say the cows never saw the rancher. Ever. Do you think it would be fair of them to assume that there was no rancher?

  A cow might look at all the hardships and say life sucks, and another cow might see all the same things yet be glad for their shot at life and what good they found in it.

  But I don’t think the outlook of the “glass half empty” vs “glass half full” cows has anything to do with whether they believe in the (as yet unseen) rancher. They might just be optimistic or pessimistic cows.

  There's no credible concept of an all-beneficent rancher (or cows or ranch) or that choice wouldn't exist.

  Are you saying that if life wasn’t filled with suffering, then all of the cows would be optimistic? That’s a good thing, isn’t it though? I’d rather have a field of happy, problem-free cows than a bovine bloodbath.

  a son from the rancher's dysfunctional family who's…presiding over those who decide life sucks and to forget the rancher.

  But for some people, life does suck. What’s wrong with acknowledging that? Why does it have to be likened to pledging allegiance to Satan? (I hope I’m understanding your illustration properly here). Some people (I assume) acknowledge that life sucks, but just get on with it. Again, the sort of language you’re using: “anti-racher”, “forget the rancher”, suggests that anyone who isn’t worshipping [the Christian] God is consciously and deliberately working against him, whereas in reality they probably don’t give “him” a second thought.
• 

  Narkissos

  To the op: "Satan" came up as a helpful tool to screen "God" away from the actual working of "evil". It can explain how "evil" is worked out -- to an extent. He's good (if I dare say) as a second cause but terrible as a first cause for "evil". If "Satan" (or the whole unscriptural WT "plot" around Satan) successfully explains the ultimate reason for evil, then we are no longer in monotheism by any stretch but in a kind of polytheism (exactly ditheism); mythology rather than theology. One god (lower case intended) struggling against another. One may be stronger than the other but he still has to play in a certain way to finally win according to the rules (even if he made the rules).

  More generally, the god who has reasons for his actions (or permissions) falls short of "God". If you can successfully explain why "God" did anything -- congratulations, you just killed "God" (again).
• 

  glenster

  "If God was a human he'd be put in prison for criminal neglect."
  
  An example of the relationship between two humans is of two beings on the same
  level of being, and a human can't claim to have provided the world and all life
  therefore God's prerogative about it all. The relationship between two humans
  isn't the concept of a human relationship to God, which is why I made the
  analogy.
  
  Most people, whether they believe in God or not, disapprove of a human parent
  neglectful of their human child, but they don't have all the same reactions to a
  human's regard of an animal in one direction and it doesn't make a case for what
  a human has to consider about God in the other direction. The person with the
  more optimistic view, whether they believe in God or not, doesn't have an opti-
  mism for the absolute neglect of the neglectful human who leaves their child to
  die but for what good to find in what was provided.
  
  "Do you think it would be fair of them to assume that there was no rancher?"
  
  The concept is of a possible God beyond the see-able, touchable world, neither
  proven nor disproven, so it's fair game to see you have a choice to believe in
  Him as an article of faith or not. It would be a forced point to say that the
  concept of God has to be disbelieved because it doesn't take into account the
  suffering in the world. That would be effective in refuting a concept of an
  all-beneficent God.
  
  "But for some people, life does suck. What’s wrong with acknowledging that?
  Why does it have to be likened to pledging allegiance to Satan? (I hope I’m un-
  derstanding your illustration properly here)."
  
  No. That a believer or non-believer can acknowledge the same hardships as
  happening is part of my point. It therefore couldn't force a case that to do
  so would be wrong. Whether you take the story of Job literally or figuratively
  for theological teaching, it's the Devil who forces the case that acknowledging
  the hardships will require someone to not believe in God.
  
  "But I don’t think the outlook of the 'glass half empty' vs 'glass half full'
  cows has anything to do with whether they believe in the (as yet unseen)
  rancher. They might just be optimistic or pessimistic cows."
  
  That's already assumed in the example. Both see the same human suffering in
  the world. The more optimistic view is to be glad for your shot at life and
  what good you found in it, so if you add God (like Job), you believe in God like
  that verses belief in God hinging on a concept of an all-beneficent world/God.
  
  "Are you saying that if life wasn’t filled with suffering, then all of the
  cows would be optimistic? That’s a good thing, isn’t it though? I’d rather
  have a field of happy, problem-free cows than a bovine bloodbath."
  
  I didn't wonder if both believers and non-believers would prefer an all-bene-
  ficent world because I assume we'd all prefer one. But to be credible, your God
  concept has to be reconciled with the real world, one with the same hardships
  whether you believe in God or not, and belief in a possible God is not only
  not restricted to an all-beneficent world/God but can't be for one because the
  hardships of the world indicate that God isn't all-beneficent.
  
  The nice believers and non-believers would condemn the 'centric examples of
  either (or people 'centric about race, nationality, etc.) who've caused the most
  bloodbaths. It comes up in my example as part of a point that it would likewise
  be unreasonable to require God as seeing people as deserving heaven on Earth for
  being all-beneficent.
• 

  bluecanary

  If we are discussing the God of the Bible, the comparison between him and humans is already made for us. He is described as Father and humans are spoken of as his children and are supposedly made in his image. The comparison to animals is not valid in this case.
• 

  Half a Person

  @Narkissos

  To the op: "Satan" came up as a helpful tool to screen "God" away from the actual working of "evil".

  Yes I remember reading an old thread on this forum which discussed Satan being a later introduction to the Old Testament.

  More generally, the god who has reasons for his actions (or permissions) falls short of "God". If you can successfully explain why "God" did anything -- congratulations, you just killed "God" (again).

  I think this sort of fits in with the passage from Job I quoted earlier on. Also this verse from Isaiah: “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (55:9). So if God is incredibly more intelligent (if that’s the right word) than us, then *by definition* it will always be impossible for us to fully understand the reasons for his actions. We would simply lack the mental capacity to comprehend what’s going through his “mind”.

  @glenster

  I think what you’re saying, basically, is that the existence of evil doesn’t stop you from believing in God. And also, that the existence of evil tells us something about God – i.e. that he is not all-beneficent. The fact that bad things happen must mean that God is capable of punishing people as well as blessing them.

  @bluecanary

  If we are discussing the God of the Bible, the comparison between him and humans is already made for us. He is described as Father and humans are spoken of as his children and are supposedly made in his image. The comparison to animals is not valid in this case.

  I wish I’d thought of that. It would have saved me a lot of typing about cows.

  So, going back to the original point: “Why don’t Christians talk about Satan when trying to explain suffering”, my conclusions so far are: (a) They DO talk about Satan, sometimes, but (b) In the end it comes down to God, because he is in charge, but (c) This question is ultimately impossible to fully answer, because we are incapable of comprehending God.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  bluecanary

  If God was a human he'd be put in prison for criminal neglect.

  I think glenster is on to something here but he doesn't go far enough.

  If we are discussing the God of the Bible, the comparison between him and humans is already made for us. He is described as Father and humans are spoken of as his children and are supposedly made in his image. The comparison to animals is not valid in this case.

  Humans have more in common with microbes than they do with God. God created the entire universe, and knows every detail about it. What gives "YOU" the righ to think of yourself as one of God's children? On what basis do "YOU" get to refer to God as your "parent"? Show us from the bible. Half a Person (with half a god)

  So, going back to the original point: “Why don’t Christians talk about Satan when trying to explain suffering”, my conclusions so far are: (a) They DO talk about Satan, sometimes, but (b) In the end it comes down to God, because he is in charge, but (c) This question is ultimately impossible to fully answer, because we are incapable of comprehending God.

  Nark has it. Nark gets the gold star.

  More generally, the god who has reasons for his actions (or permissions) falls short of "God". If you can successfully explain why "God" did anything -- congratulations, you just killed "God" (again).

  I like to think of it this way. God can give reasons "if He wants". But, doesn't "need" to.