Theists, why does God allow suffering..

by The Quiet One 754 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • The Quiet One
    The Quiet One
  • prologos
    prologos

    suffering, pain in animals is a build-in defense mechanism. It alerts the individual to react to the danger of greater injury. possible death.

    If such suffering were not usefull, evolution would have bred it out of existence.

    you animals be grateful for being and be ready to SUFFER the consequences.

    There is no God that monitors and micro-manages neurons that "ring alarm bells".

  • The Quiet One
    The Quiet One

    Prologos-- In response to post 1514.. How can an animal avoid getting cancer or developing painful growths/tumours? And a 'success-based universe'?? So all of the suffering we see and experience is a game, or a competition? What a loving God...

  • tec
    tec
    Nope, that explanation holds no water if someone understands how the Bible defines "God's Divine will" vs mankind's "free will". God's will ALWAYS TRUMPS man's free will, where violating it is a sin.

    I hear this a lot... BUT... no one seems to think that free will is curtailed just because we have laws in place. You have the freedom to follow those laws, or reject those laws. You do not have freedom from consequence. Free will is NOT freedom from consequence, including NATURAL consequences.

    Per the Bible, death entered into the World by Adam's fall, where eating the fruit was a violation of Divine Will. Since that was the ONLY command recorded in the Bible up to that point, that was the ONE decision that Adam and Eve didn't have God's permission to make for themselves, using their free will decision-making capabilities. Thus, eating the forbidden fruit was the ONLY action Adam and Eve could take that WASN'T a free-will decision, since it would be a violation of God's Will, and hence a sin (which is the Bible's explanation for how sin and evil entered into the World).

    It was absolutely a free will decision. Each of them had a choice... eat or don't eat. Listen or don't listen. They chose, freely.

    So If God truly didn't want to let evil enter into the World, He should've not made it possible for sin to occur by not starting in with "Thou Shalts" and the "Thou Shalt Nots", in the first place!

    If you love someone, you will warn them away from what is going to harm them, especially if they are not YET ready to bear (eat) it.

    "Do not eat from that tree. If you eat from the tree of good and evil (death), then you will die."

    A warning. They ate, and death entered them... and the world.

    PS Oh, it was a REALLY BAD IDEA to place that Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the center of the Garden, without so much as putting a seraphim with a flaming sword to guard it. Seems kinda silly, if an omniscient God already knew He was only going to fly off the handle after they ate it!

    It simply existed. They were not, however, able to eat of it and live... YET.

    If there had been a seraphim guarding it, even though they had done nothing wrong, they'd have been treated as though they WERE already guilty of sin.

    Apparently faithless Eve didn't know about the reassuring words of James 1:13:
    "When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone...."

    She was not tempted by God. She was tempted by her own desire, and the serpent exploited that and deceived her.

    Adam was also tempted by his own desires... and he was not even deceived. He KNEW, but he wanted what he wanted.

    The Eve story wasn't like that AT ALL, NO SIRREE! It's not like God gave the forbidden fruit a catchy name to target-market it to Eve, or made it look nutritious to eat, give it a delicious yummy aroma/scent, and loaded it with miraculous wisdom-granting powers (which God couldn't even over-ride, despite the granting of wisdom being a miracle, due to his Omnipotent Divine Power)! A God who could do all things didn't have the antidote, so it clearly was "out of his hands, and in God's God's hands"after they ate it!.
    Apparently a faithless Eve hadn't yet read 1 Cor 10:13, either (although not being omniscient, can we really blame her?):

    And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

    Cold comfort to a "perfect" Eve, who really couldn't have been so "perfect" if she was able to DESIRE (AKA covet, a violation of the ten commandments, with the "Thou Shalt Not Covet") things, since the behavior was later deemed to be a sin.

    The commandment is not 'thou shall not covet'. You can covet. You cannot covet something that belongs to someone ELSE. Your neighbor's wife; property; etc. Because it does not belong to YOU. Coveting what belongs to someone else leads to things like jealousy, theft, resentment, anger, murder, wars, death, etc.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • adamah
    adamah
    Nope, that explanation holds no water if someone understands how the Bible defines "God's Divine will" vs mankind's "free will". God's will ALWAYS TRUMPS man's free will, where violating it is a sin.

    I hear this a lot... BUT... no one seems to think that free will is curtailed just because we have laws in place.

    There's a philosophical definition of the term "free will", too: that's what most people are referring to when they use it in reference to secular law. I'm using the term in the theological (Bible-based) domain, only.

    You have the freedom to follow those laws, or reject those laws. You do not have freedom from consequence. Free will is NOT freedom from consequence, including NATURAL consequences.

    Yup, you're getting it now.

    In theological discussions, "free will" is NOT synonymous for "freedom from consequences" or "freedom of choice": instead, 'free will' pertains ONLY for decisions which are made using one's "Bible-trained conscience" (AKA "conscience matters") to make decisions only on those matters where God hasn't already issued a positive ("thou shalt do X") or negative ("thou shalt not do X") commandment. Of course, you should know that God doesn't allow people to sin, and to excuse it in the name of "exercising their free will". As I said before, in theological discusions, God's will ALWAYS trumps man's free will, EVERYTIME.

    In fact, to their credit, the WTBTS is careful to discern between how they use the terms "free will" and "freedom of choice": when it comes to conscience matters they use 'free will'; when it comes to obeying God's laws (eg thou shalt not murder), they use 'freedom of choice'.

    But in the case of the Divine prohibition given in Genesis 2:15, it's clearly stated as Divine Will, and specifies the offense AND punishment.

    Per the Bible, death entered into the World by Adam's fall, where eating the fruit was a violation of Divine Will. Since that was the ONLY command recorded in the Bible up to that point, that was the ONE decision that Adam and Eve didn't have God's permission to make for themselves, using their free will decision-making capabilities. Thus, eating the forbidden fruit was the ONLY action Adam and Eve could take that WASN'T a free-will decision, since it would be a violation of God's Will, and hence a sin (which is the Bible's explanation for how sin and evil entered into the World).

    It was absolutely a free will decision. Each of them had a choice... eat or don't eat. Listen or don't listen. They chose, freely.

    LOL! You just agreed with the idea of 'free will' being different from 'freedom of consequences'! Flip-flop much?

    (If you simply said "they had the freedom to choose" I'd agree. But you're now abusing the meaning of 'free will', which only perpetuates needless confusion.)

    So If God truly didn't want to let evil enter into the World, He should've not made it possible for sin to occur by not starting in with "Thou Shalts" and the "Thou Shalt Nots", in the first place!

    If you love someone, you will warn them away from what is going to harm them, especially if they are not YET ready to bear (eat) it. "Do not eat from that tree. If you eat from the tree of good and evil (death), then you will die." A warning. They ate, and death entered them... and the world.

    You seem to have missed the point that the punishment stemmed NOT as a "natural consequence" of their action, but as a DIRECT OUTCOME of God's punishment. There's almost no one who'd say forbidden fruit was toxic or poisonous, so you're not claiming that, are you?

    (And even claiming it was a "natural consequence" of eating is odd assertion to make anyway, eg have you NOT ever heard of God's supposed capability to overcome DEATH, where Jesus resurrected the dead by forgiving their sins and performing miracles? What happened to, "with God, all things are possible"?)

    Seems to me you want to have your cake and eat it, too, with a God who can overcome death when he wishes, but then if that is going to be a problem for defending his actions in the Bible, you suddenly want him to be a titmouse who suffers from having his hands tied?

    PS Oh, it was a REALLY BAD IDEA to place that Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the center of the Garden, without so much as putting a seraphim with a flaming sword to guard it. Seems kinda silly, if an omniscient God already knew He was only going to fly off the handle after they ate it!

    It simply existed. They were not, however, able to eat of it and live... YET.

    If there had been a seraphim guarding it, even though they had done nothing wrong, they'd have been treated as though they WERE already guilty of sin.

    Yeah, you're going to have to identity your subject explicitly, i.e. I have no idea what "it" is referring to. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

    Apparently faithless Eve didn't know about the reassuring words of James 1:13:
    "When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone...."

    She was not tempted by God. She was tempted by her own desire, and the serpent exploited that and deceived her. Adam was also tempted by his own desires... and he was not even deceived. He KNEW, but he wanted what he wanted.

    Eve being unable to control "her own desires" and to experience temptation doesn't sound like she was really "perfect" then, does it?

    Just realize: the whole "Adam and Eve lived in a state of perfection, and then sinned" is not something that Jews had EVER interpreted the story as saying, which explains WHY the actual details of the story don't "fit" that reading. It was never CONCEIVED to serve as the basis for Christianity, but as an origins story of mankind that appears in the Jewish Bible, the Torah.

    The Eve story wasn't like that AT ALL, NO SIRREE! It's not like God gave the forbidden fruit a catchy name to target-market it to Eve, or made it look nutritious to eat, give it a delicious yummy aroma/scent, and loaded it with miraculous wisdom-granting powers (which God couldn't even over-ride, despite the granting of wisdom being a miracle, due to his Omnipotent Divine Power)! A God who could do all things didn't have the antidote, so it clearly was "out of his hands, and in God's God's hands"after they ate it!.
    Cold comfort to a "perfect" Eve, who really couldn't have been so "perfect" if she was able to DESIRE (AKA covet, a violation of the ten commandments, with the "Thou Shalt Not Covet") things, since the behavior was later deemed to be a sin.

    The commandment is not 'thou shall not covet'. You can covet. You cannot covet something that belongs to someone ELSE. Your neighbor's wife; property; etc. Because it does not belong to YOU. Coveting what belongs to someone else leads to things like jealousy, theft, resentment, anger, murder, wars, death, etc.

    Yeah, the problem with your logic is the account makes the point that it's extremely unwise to covet God's possessions! Are you denying that it was God's Garden and He had the AUTHORITY to exercise property rights, which includes the right to evict them? It seems you don't agree that God is someone who holds property rights over the entire Earth, and gives permission to inhabit it?

    Or did you forget that God GAVE them explicit permission to eat of ALL of the trees in the Garden, BESIDES the TOKOGE?

    Genesis 2:15

    15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

    That restriction follows the form of a Divine commandment, with a negative command which specifies the punishment.

    I wrote on the topic of Adam and Eve, plus on the so-called "wisdom paradox" of the account of Adam and Eve (as well as the NWT's fruitless (pun intended: yuk yuk!) attempt to keep it concealed from it's members):

    http://awgue.weebly.com/the-paradox-of-adam-and-eve-and-how-the-new-world-translation-fruitlessly-attempts-to-keep-it-hidden.html

    Adam

  • cantleave
    cantleave
    God has made humans the gatekeepers of the physical universe.

    Wow!!! Just Wow! The arrogance of that statement is astounding.

    That would be like the ants in the bottom of my garden saying I have made them the gatekeepers of my house....

  • MrFreeze
    MrFreeze

    I'm glad someone bumped this thread. Very good points made by OP that I hadn't thought of.

  • tec
    tec
    There's a philosophical definition of the term "free will", too: that's what most people are referring to when they use it in reference to secular law. I'm using the term in the theological (Bible-based) domain, only.

    Free will is free will.

    You have the freedom to follow those laws, or reject those laws. You do not have freedom from consequence. Free will is NOT freedom from consequence, including NATURAL consequences.
    Yup, you're getting it now.

    No, I already got it. You are the one about to add in all sorts of addendums and contingencies.

    In theological discussions, "free will" is NOT synonymous for "freedom from consequences" or "freedom of choice": instead, 'free will' pertains ONLY for decisions which are made using one's "Bible-trained conscience" (AKA "conscience matters") to make decisions only on those matters where God hasn't already issued a positive ("thou shalt do X") or negative ("thou shalt not do X") commandment. Of course, you should know that God doesn't allow people to sin, and to excuse it in the name of "exercising their free will". As I said before, in theological discusions, God's will ALWAYS trumps man's free will, EVERYTIME.

    I would suggest that you are contradicting yourself... but you seem to already know that. You understand free will, but then you make an exception for free will in 'theology'; making a difference between free will and free choice.

    I don't know why you do that. Unless religions do that and you are listening to what their leaders say? I would not know; I don't know all that religion and its leaders teach.

    Again, free will... is free will.

    , butIn fact, to their credit, the WTBTS is careful to discern between how they use the terms "free will" and "freedom of choice": when it comes to conscience matters they use 'free will'; when it comes to obeying God's laws (eg thou shalt not murder), they use 'freedom of choice'.

    Why does it matter what they say?

    But in the case of the Divine prohibition given in Genesis 2:15, it's clearly stated as Divine Will, and specifies the offense AND punishment.

    Well, that was cause and effect; offense and natural consequence.

    It was absolutely a free will decision. Each of them had a choice... eat or don't eat. Listen or don't listen. They chose, freely.
    LOL! You just agreed with the idea of 'free will' being different from 'freedom of consequences'! Flip-flop much?
    (If you simply said "they had the freedom to choose" I'd agree. But you're now abusing the meaning of 'free will', which only perpetuates needless confusion.)

    I have not flip flopped at all. I have not said anything other than what I originally said. You are perpetuating confusion in creating two different things with two different definitions. Perhaps you should explain where or from whom you get your definition of 'free will' and 'freedom to choose'?

    If you love someone, you will warn them away from what is going to harm them, especially if they are not YET ready to bear (eat) it. "Do not eat from that tree. If you eat from the tree of good and evil (death), then you will die." A warning. They ate, and death entered them... and the world.
    You seem to have missed the point that the punishment stemmed NOT as a "natural consequence" of their action, but as a DIRECT OUTCOME of God's punishment. There's almost no one who'd say forbidden fruit was toxic or poisonous, so you're not claiming that, are you?

    Tree of the knowledge of good (life) and bad (death)... so yes, the forbidden fruit WAS toxic. They ATE of DEATH.

    (And even claiming it was a "natural consequence" of eating is odd assertion to make anyway, eg have you NOT ever heard of God's supposed capability to overcome DEATH, where Jesus resurrected the dead by forgiving their sins and performing miracles? What happened to, "with God, all things are possible"?)

    With God, all things ARE possible.

    However, they were no longer permitted to eat from the tree of Life at that time. Had they obeyed and listened to God, then they would have eventually be given ALL as they were ready to receive it, but they did not have faith in Him, and instead chose to go their own way, wanting it all right now... even though they were not yet ready for such a thing. This does not mean that they will not enter the kingdom upon the resurrection though.

    Seems to me you want to have your cake and eat it, too, with a God who can overcome death when he wishes, but then if that is going to be a problem for defending his actions in the Bible, you suddenly want him to be a titmouse who suffers from having his hands tied?

    Christ has overcome death for all those who have LIFE in them (from eating of Him: Christ, the Life... same as if they had eaten of the Tree of Life, the Life again being Christ). God did not warn them for no reason... He DID say, if you eat of the tree of knowing good and bad, you will die... and death did enter them; however, God prepared for them these vessels (long garments of skin, the same clay vessels that Paul speaks about), and sin and death is within that vessel; this body that we have. Hence, we get sick, we get old, we die. All of us. Because we inherited these vessels from Adam and Eve (and we would not exist anyway, had A&E died without that provision from God to begin with, since we came from them, in their image). God, however, provided a way for all of us to come home, come to Him, through the Life that He has sent us to eat from: Christ. The spirit that we ARE, does not have to die.

    PS Oh, it was a REALLY BAD IDEA to place that Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the center of the Garden, without so much as putting a seraphim with a flaming sword to guard it. Seems kinda silly, if an omniscient God already knew He was only going to fly off the handle after they ate it!... adama
    It simply existed. They were not, however, able to eat of it and live... YET.... tec
    If there had been a seraphim guarding it, even though they had done nothing wrong, they'd have been treated as though they WERE already guilty of sin. ... tec

    Yeah, you're going to have to identity your subject explicitly, i.e. I have no idea what "it" is referring to. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

    It = the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

    She was not tempted by God. She was tempted by her own desire, and the serpent exploited that and deceived her. Adam was also tempted by his own desires... and he was not even deceived. He KNEW, but he wanted what he wanted.
    Eve being unable to control "her own desires" and to experience temptation doesn't sound like she was really "perfect" then, does it?
    Just realize: the whole "Adam and Eve lived in a state of perfection, and then sinned" is not something that Jews had EVER interpreted the story as saying, which explains WHY the actual details of the story don't "fit" that reading. It was never CONCEIVED to serve as the basis for Christianity, but as an origins story of mankind that appears in the Jewish Bible, the Torah.

    Well, she (and Adam) were not created with sin... but that does not mean they could not sin.

    The commandment is not 'thou shall not covet'. You can covet. You cannot covet something that belongs to someone ELSE. Your neighbor's wife; property; etc. Because it does not belong to YOU. Coveting what belongs to someone else leads to things like jealousy, theft, resentment, anger, murder, wars, death, etc.
    Yeah, the problem with your logic is the account makes the point that it's extremely unwise to covet God's possessions! Are you denying that it was God's Garden and He had the AUTHORITY to exercise property rights, which includes the right to evict them? It seems you don't agree that God is someone who holds property rights over the entire Earth, and gives permission to inhabit it?
    Or did you forget that God GAVE them explicit permission to eat of ALL of the trees in the Garden, BESIDES the TOKOGE?

    I'm not forgetting any of that. I don't know what point you are trying to make. I simply expanded upon the 'thou shalt not covet'... that you had said, because that is not what the commandment states. There is a difference between coveting and coveting another person's property. And of course God had the authority to exercise property rights... as you put it... including the right to evict them. Adam was supposed to come in and 'husband' the garden; care for... not destroy by bringing death into it. So he could not be trusted with the garden (the spiritual realm), because he had proven that he did NOT care for it or those things within it more than he cared to satisfy his own desires. At least not at that time. He might well have learned outside of the garden, so as to be able to return at the time of the resurrection of the dead. Same as our own children often have to learn the hard way, on their own, going their own way.

    Genesis 2:15

    15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

    That restriction follows the form of a Divine commandment, with a negative command which specifies the punishment.

    If you eat, you will die... is a consequence.

    If you eat, I will kill you... is a punishment.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • adamah
    adamah

    TEC said-

    I would suggest that you are contradicting yourself... but you seem to already know that. You understand free will, but then you make an exception for free will in 'theology'; making a difference between free will and free choice.

    Now you're displaying your ignorance on this topic, as well?

    Newsflash for you, TEC: the term 'free will' does NOT appear in the Bible.

    Go for it: look it up in a computer-based index, if you're a Doubting Thomas, but it simply doesn't appear in the Bible. You cannot find it, since it's not there.

    Instead, the term arose thousands of years later in philosophical discussions, and the use in theological discussions is necessarily different, since secular philosophers don't BELIEVE in God, so they don't believe in Divine Will. To an atheist though, the term 'free will' still has usefulness (eg within the context of discussions of biological determinism, where certain psychological traits may pre-dispose individuals to commit certain crimes). I know, I know: you wouldn't think about such discussions, since you've likely never engaged in them with others, but don't blame me for that!

    To make matters worse for you, theologians DO discriminate between freedom of choice and free will.

    http://criticalhermeneutics.com/2011/05/freedom-of-choice-or-free-will/

    OR

    http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue92.htm

    Please realize that free will is more of a philosophical concept than a theological one, though it has theological implications. However, I often see well meaning Christians misled by certain teachers who make their own understanding of free will a test for orthodoxy. I think this is unfortunate and confusing. If the following discussion does nothing else, it will show you that free will is not the simple solution to many important theological issues that many people think it is.

    Problem 1 – The Bible Does Not Directly Address Free will

    Free will is assumed from passages that teach human responsibility.

    As we begin our discussion we confront our most important problem: free will is never directly addressed in the Bible. Even in passages where prophets and others asked God why He allowed so much evil to harm the innocent, it was not discussed.

    TEC said-

    Free will is free will.

    AND

    Again, free will... is free will.

    You mean to tell me that before this very moment, you've never ever run across the concept of a 'circular definition'?

    Adam

  • tec
    tec
    Now you're displaying your ignorance on this topic, as well?

    Ignorance of what some/many theologians teach... no doubt. As I said previously, I do not keep up with 'theologians' or 'scholars', etc. Honestly, who cares what they teach? They all have different opinions, and they are just that: opinions. They know no more than any other person as regard to the Truth, who is Christ. They are not the ones we are meant or told to be listening TO. 'We' equaling Christians... those who follow and belong to Christ. (not the religion of Christianity, but Christ, Himself)

    Newsflash for you, TEC: the term 'free will' does NOT appear in the Bible.

    Its not really a newsflash, love.

    Being 'free', and setting people 'free', and 'breaking yokes' (not the eggs, lol), however, do appear there. Freedom being found in Christ, not theologians.

    Adam and Eve had the ABILITY to make their choice to begin with. Hence, they had free will.

    Go for it: look it up in a computer-based index, if you're a Doubting Thomas, but it simply doesn't appear in the Bible. You cannot find it, since it's not there.

    And? Your point is?

    Are you not the one talking about free will as determined by the bible? These are your words:

    I'm using the term in the theological (Bible-based) domain, only... Adamah

    Why do you think there is a difference between the two domains (theological and secular), in terms of defining free will?

    Instead, the term arose thousands of years later in philosophical discussions, and the use in theological discussions is necessarily different, since secular philosophers don't BELIEVE in God, so they don't believe in Divine Will. To an atheist though, the term 'free will' still has usefulness (eg within the context of discussions of biological determinism, where certain psychological traits may pre-dispose individuals to commit certain crimes). I know, I know: you wouldn't think about such discussions, since you've likely never engaged in them with others, but don't blame me for that!

    I have both thought of such discussions and while I think I just listened/read rather than engaged, I know what you are speaking of. If people were hardwired, however, to do what their biology states, that is not really free will... that would be more like being a slave to one's flesh. (genes/DNA) This is true to an extent (sexual orientation is not a choice any of us consciously make, for instance).

    So that sins of the flesh are confined to the flesh, and are not necessarily an issue outside of this 'vessel'.

    To make matters worse for you, theologians DO discriminate between freedom of choice and free will.

    Doesn't make matters worse or better for me. Doesn't really matter to me.

    Free will is the ability to choose. It is not the ability to choose without consequence. Actions have reactions. Causes have effects. A person can act against the will of God if they choose to do so... they have the ability to do this... but that does not mean that there are no consequences to their choices.

    We are not hardwired where we have no ability to choose whether to listen to God or not. Peace, tammy

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit