Why has God permitted suffering?

[Silver Bullet]

You might as well just conclude that the "Good Lord works in mysterious ways".

I will say it again: anything can be rationalized this way.

Here I go again, jumping into someone else's debate. But...

The Lord does work in mysterious ways. And anything can be rationalized this way. I don't see what the problem is.

Thanks for jumping into the debate JoJo! Always a pleasure to hear from you.

It has been argued above that God is all good, and that the diabolical evil Drew attributed to Yawheh in the OT, and the ongoing evil we see around us today, is a necessary evil that God must employ to ultimately bring about good.

For the sake of argument alone, let me ask you this: how do you know that God is not pure evil, and that the good we see in scripture and around us today is not a necessary good that God must employ to ultimately bring about evil?

Best,
SB

 

[Joe67]

Drew,

Yes, Romans 7 is a very vital God-given testimony in this understanding that God has purpose in all events.

Jew and Gentile are both in bondage under the same covenant but with different words; thereby different forms of law and human obligation. The same God is over all.

The Jews heard the words of God to them from heaven and out of the fire and by the request out of their own mouths were put in bondage through what God gave Moses to write in the book.

The Gentiles heard the oracles from the ground and saw the movements of nature and their philosophers and poets and scientists/mathematicians expounded to the people their thoughts of God.

God bound them both under the same covenant of obedience and reward, failure and punishment. This leaves them both with unbelief toward God's purpose. The covenant of human responsibility is a good covenant, but it comes short through its ignorance of God's eternal purpose which he purposed in his grace in Jesus Christ, before the world was generated (Genesis 2:4----).

There is a group of angels that are given to guard and administer this covenant of human responsibility. They also are bound in their heart and mind and are left ignorant of the Father's purpose in Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. Their zeal is for the authority of God through the covenant of obey and live, disobey and suffer; and this zeal cannot be despised, but it goes to extremes in its ignorance of the purpose of God in the suffering of Jesus. God has authorized them to punish every act of disobedience, but they do not have a part in the life to come. Hebrews 2:2-5.

The wrath of God comes through the authority administered through this group of angels. But this wrath plays a part in the salvation of his called children; albeit a little part. Romans 8:18, 2 Corinthians 4:17, 1 Peter 1:6,7; though our suffering does not justify, that is, give us peace with God. Jesus' blood is the means whereby God speaks his justification into our hearts and minds and gives us peace with Him in regard to our sins and iniquity and credits us with righteousness through one man's obedience.

All laws works wrath (Romans 4:15), even though they are holy, just and good. The problem is not with laws, the problem is that we have sin in our bodies warring against our thoughts, bringing our thoughts and intentions into captivity to evil desires of the flesh and mind even when we would do good. This occurs even though God has sprinkled our hearts from an evil conscience and has given us peace with Him in Jesus Christ our Lord. Thereby the need for the body to be washed in the pure water of the word through the ashes of a red heifer, the water of affliction. Thereby the need for the vile body to be changed at the appearing of our Lord Jesus.

Joe

 

[Drew]

Always a sincere pleasure to read you posts Drew. You have a very nice way of explaining your thoughtful positions. As I'm sure you have already guessed, I disagree, but I want to emphasize how much I enjoy this interaction with you.

Thanks, I also find your style to be charitable and articulate.

I suggest that one responsible way of dealing with this material is to think of the possibility that God has no choice but to cause these things to happen - in order to fulfill an ultimately benevolent purpose.

I think it is a circular argument Drew:

You start with the premise that God is benevolent, and then argue that the evil we see must really be benevolent.

Well, of course I believe that God exists and is benevolent. And to make a "case" for that would be a massive, time-consuming undertaking.

But I do not think the circularity criticism applies here. My argument would be circular if I used an assumption of God's benevolence to make the case that God is benevolent.

But that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing this: Given the postion that God exists and is benevolent, can we come up with an explanation for God's seemingly evil actions (e.g. ordering genocide) that can be reconciled with the position that God is benevolent.

To make this argument, I am not engaging in circular reasoning by bringing a belief in the existence of a benevolent God as a "premise".

 

[Drew]

I would like to clarify something. The "argument" that I have implied I am going to make is not an argument as to why there is suffering in the world. It addresses something a lot more narrow - it is an argument about how God's "ordering" of seemingly evil actions (e.g. genocides in the Old Testament) can be reconciled with the notion that God is good.

These are not the same questions, although they overlap a little.

Just to give an initial sense of my argument, I will offer the following:

1. Assumption: God is benevolent;

2. Assumption: God is not omnipotent in the naive "He can do whatever He wants" sense. Instead, He is bound by the restrictions of His own prior commitments;

3. Assumption: The world became infected with the "intelligent virus of sin" long ago. And by "sin", I do not mean what most people mean. I use the term "intelligent virus" very intentionally. One of the underpinnings of my argument is that "sin" is a real force of power that is part of the "physicality" of our world. It is not a vague moral category. I fully understand that I need to greatly expand on precisely what I mean by this conceptualization of sin. Not in this post.

4. God, as a benevolent agent, wants to rid the world of the virus of sin, which damages the world. Howevier, as per assumption (2), He cannot merely "wave His hands" and make it so.

5. God undertakes a long process of trying to localize and concentrate the virus of sin in a place where it is vulnerable to countermeasures. This is another assumption - sin has this property that it can only be attacked when it has been "concentrated".

6. God starts this process in the nation of Israel. And part of this involves ordering the Jews to commit these awful deeds - exterminating entire peoples. What is going on? Sin is being deceived into being concentrated in the Jews. As they commit these "evil" actions, the power of sin gets concentrated and localized in them.

7. God is doing all this with the cross in mind. The power of sin, concentrated in Israel, is then transferred into Jesus' person on the cross. And there it (sin, not Jesus) is attacked and broken by God.

This is an exceedingly crude sketch, but it gives some sense of where I think I am going. Several points:

1. While the idea of God "concentrating sin" in the Jews is not my own idea (it comes from theologian NT Wright), the idea that the "ordering of genocides" contributes to this is. And it is a very new idea to me, so it may well not lead anywhere;

2. Obviously, the argument has assumptions. Ultimately, one can dissemble any argument with a hermeneutic of extreme suspicion. So if you are going to ask me "how do I know God is not an evil being pretending to be good" or "how do you know the Bible is reasonably accurate", etc., then you are more or less asking for a defence of theology in general. And obviously, I have neither the time nor the capacity to defend the entire sweeping panorama of 2000 + years of Christian thinking.

 

[Silver Bullet]

I am arguing this: Given the postion that God exists and is benevolent, can we come up with an explanation for God's seemingly evil actions (e.g. ordering genocide) that can be reconciled with the position that God is benevolent.

To make this argument, I am not engaging in circular reasoning by bringing a belief in the existence of a benevolent God as a "premise".

Clearly, you must establish that God exists and is benevolent. That is step 1. Nobody has managed to accomplish this. Please do so!

Even if you could do that (which I don't think you can), you'd still be going in circles because your premise would then indeed be that God is benevolent (based on the above, if you could accomplish it) and your argument for explaining God's apparent evil, no matter how you put it, is ultimately going to boil down to "God must have a benevolent motive for evil that we can't possibly know or understand because He has the big picture and is benevolent" (as I believe you have already described in an earlier post). It seems to me that there is no good reason to believe that my paraphrasing of this argument is meaningfully different from your statement:

I suggest that one responsible way of dealing with this material is to think of the possibility that God has no choice but to cause these things to happen - in order to fulfill an ultimately benevolent purpose.

Best,
SB

PS. I hadn't read your most recent post while composing this one, which I just noticed after posting mine. I will look your most recent post over later today. Always a pleasure . . .

 

[Drew]

Clearly, you must establish that God exists and is benevolent. That is step 1. Nobody has managed to accomplish this. Please do so!

Sorry. I do not have the time or interest to do this. I am sure you understand that it is easy to ask for a sweeping defence of the entirely of the Christian's worldview, it is quite another to give such a defence. Let's say that I asked you to explain the entire content of, say, "materialism" (and I mean this is in the philosophical sense. That is too much to ask for a person with other commitments.

And, of course, I trust that you are wise enough not to use my "pass" on your request as if this were evidence of the falsity of the assertion of the existence of a benevolent God. That would be like me asking you to explain general relativity , you saying "I don't have the time", and me then concluding that this casts the truth of general relativity into doubt.

You are asking legitimate questions, but they are just too big.

Even if you could do that (which I don't think you can), you'd still be going in circles because your premise would then indeed be that God is benevolent (based on the above, if you could accomplish it) and your argument for explaining God's apparent evil, no matter how you put it, is ultimately going to boil down to "God must have a benevolent motive for evil that we can't possibly know or understand because He has the big picture" (as I believe you have already described in an earlier post). It seems to me that there is no good reason to believe that my paraphrasing of this argument is not meaningfully different from your statement:

No. You are making an assumption that my case will be basically an empty appeal. As you will know if you read my recent post, I am not simply sating that "God has the big picture and we cannot understand it". I am hoping to give a detailed account of that picture, showing how everything fits together. That is entirely different from a vague "well this benevolent God has a big picture that we cannot understand, so I'll just assume that God uses evil for good in that framework" - I am not doing this at all. I am saying that the specifics of how God uses evil for good are indeed comprehensible to us.

 

[Joe67]

I am saying that the specifics of how God uses evil for good are indeed comprehensible to us.

Rom 1:19-20
that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, (even) his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
ASV

Man needs reconciliation to God. Man is angry with his Creator, like Jonah.

Jonah 3:10-4:1
10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil which he said he would do unto them; and he did it not.
4:1 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was angry. ASV

Why was Jonah angry at God's actions?

Joe

 

[Silver Bullet]

You are making an assumption that my case will be basically an empty appeal. As you will know if you read my recent post, I am not simply sating that "God has the big picture and we cannot understand it". I am hoping to give a detailed account of that picture, showing how everything fits together. That is entirely different from a vague "well this benevolent God has a big picture that we cannot understand, so I'll just assume that God uses evil for good in that framework" - I am not doing this at all. I am saying that the specifics of how God uses evil for good are indeed comprehensible to us.

Ok Drew, I am all ears. You will forgive me for making this assumption, given what you have written before however:

I do not see a problem here. The fact that God, by hypothesis, sometimes "violates" the moral code that we are asked to live by does not create a problem for us. God has the big picture - we don't . . . I suggest that one responsible way of dealing with this material is to think of the possibility that God has no choice but to cause these things to happen - in order to fulfill an ultimately benevolent purpose . . . Again, think of chemotherapy. If we did not know the big picture, we might imagine that the doctor was an evil person

I am looking forward to it.

SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

Silver Bullet,

As long as it is possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for instances where he chooses not to intervene to prevent some evil, then there is no logical incoherency. There is no successful argument against a morally perfect being on the basis of the problem of evil.


Thanks,
Eric

I've been thinking about this some more, and while I eventually accepted it, I no longer do.

It must not only be possible for God to have a morally sufficient reason for permitting or causing evil; God absolutely must have a morally sufficient reason for permitting or causing evil.


Language like "as long as it is possible that . . . " is the type of language that must be employed because one cannot possibly know what God's motives have been for every apparent evil.

This leads to the following circular argument: God is benevolent, so he must have a morally sufficient reason for permitting or causing evil".

It's begging the question, plain and simple.

SB

 

[JoJo]

Thanks for jumping into the debate JoJo! Always a pleasure to hear from you.

It has been argued above that God is all good, and that the diabolical evil Drew attributed to Yawheh in the OT, and the ongoing evil we see around us today, is a necessary evil that God must employ to ultimately bring about good.

For the sake of argument alone, let me ask you this: how do you know that God is not pure evil, and that the good we see in scripture and around us today is not a necessary good that God must employ to ultimately bring about evil?

Best,
SB

Thanks for the recap! I do intend to go back and read this whole thread eventually. :yes

In response to your questions, I have this to say: The more questions we ask, the more questions we get. We can't know everything and the attempt to try would drive anyone crazy. And sometimes these domino-questions lead to absurd hypothetical scenarios that any learned scholar could probably shoot down in a split second. But I am not a learned scholar, I am just a Christian with common sense and faith in God and His Word (that says He is good).

If God is responsible for both evil and good, then He is also the measuring stick for what is evil and good. Since the Bible tells us that we are made in His image, we can assume that our views of evil and good probably mirror His own views. If God says He is good, and we know something about good from living around it, we can trust that He is good.

God created the world and gave us freedom to enjoy it, with one exception: avoid the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And we didn't avoid it. The deceiver came along and tempted us with this knowledge. Well, we know where that led! So now we are caught up in this endless quest for a knowledge that we can't possibly understand (our brains don't have the capacity).

OR, we can choose to accept God at His Word with a childlike faith. I choose the latter because for one, it shows that I have faith in a God that is too big to understand (who would worship a god they could completely dissect into understandable functions?) and because I can rely on Him instead of my own prideful self. I believe God wanted it this way (hence the forbidden tree and the verses about childlike faith).

I will continue to pray for you SB. I pray that your thirst for knowledge will be quenched by the only One who can fulfill your needs.

 

[Drew]

Ok Drew, I am all ears. You will forgive me for making this assumption, given what you have written before however:

I do not see a problem here. The fact that God, by hypothesis, sometimes "violates" the moral code that we are asked to live by does not create a problem for us. God has the big picture - we don't . . . I suggest that one responsible way of dealing with this material is to think of the possibility that God has no choice but to cause these things to happen - in order to fulfill an ultimately benevolent purpose . . . Again, think of chemotherapy. If we did not know the big picture, we might imagine that the doctor was an evil person

Fair enough. I understand why you would see me as being of two minds.

When I posted the material directly above, I was talking about how we behave in the world is one thing, how God behaves is another. I know that it is widely held that God is our "example" or model, so that if God does such and such, we should do likewise. I am saying that such a position is an over-simplification for the person who takes the Bible seriously. After all, God ordered genocides, and I suggest it should be clear to all that we should never do so.

However, I do indeed believe that God "had no choice" but to order those genocides, if His "good" plan was to work.

Here is my best effort to resolve the ambiguity that I may be responsible for creating:

1. We should obey the moral principles set forth in the Bible, even if God Himself seemingly violated them in the Old Testament - He was solving a big problem and was actually acting "benevolently" even though this can only be understood in hindsight. We are not doing anything like what God was doing, so we cannot justify things like acts of genocide.

2. Looking back at those acts of genocide in the Old Testament, we can understand in hindsight what God was up to and legitimately see it as "benevolent"

 

[Silver Bullet]

I am not simply sating that "God has the big picture and we cannot understand it". I am hoping to give a detailed account of that picture, showing how everything fits together. That is entirely different from a vague "well this benevolent God has a big picture that we cannot understand, so I'll just assume that God uses evil for good in that framework" - I am not doing this at all. I am saying that the specifics of how God uses evil for good are indeed comprehensible to us.

Well Drew, are you going to enlighten us and fill in the details here demonstrating how your explanation of God's apparently evil actions are indeed the very best that he could do?

As you know, my position on the problem of evil is that we should consider it solved: God is either impotent, evil, or does not exist (in which case, there is no problem).

SB

 

[Free]

As you know, my position on the problem of evil is that we should consider it solved: God is either impotent, evil, or does not exist (in which case, there is no problem).

SB

And my position is that for you as a non-believer there is no such thing as evil, therefore no problem exists. I don't see how you can fail to recognize that. As soon as you acknowledge the existence of evil, your position is in trouble.

 

[Imagican]

I am not simply sating that "God has the big picture and we cannot understand it". I am hoping to give a detailed account of that picture, showing how everything fits together. That is entirely different from a vague "well this benevolent God has a big picture that we cannot understand, so I'll just assume that God uses evil for good in that framework" - I am not doing this at all. I am saying that the specifics of how God uses evil for good are indeed comprehensible to us.

Well Drew, are you going to enlighten us and fill in the details here demonstrating how your explanation of God's apparently evil actions are indeed the very best that he could do?

As you know, my position on the problem of evil is that we should consider it solved: God is either impotent, evil, or does not exist (in which case, there is no problem).

SB

Silver Bullet,

Your conclusion shows how you have limited yourself in understanding. You state three possibilities and say that they are IT. I could sit here ALL DAY and offer that your three pale in comparison to ALL the possibilities that EXIST.

Evil in nothing other than disobedience or the opposite of LOVE. Love is unity or sharing. Evil only TAKES.

Free will created EVIL. Since God 'gave us' free will, then you could certainly, in this respect, blame it on God. But in truth, it is the ABUSE of 'free will' that brought evil into existence. So, God did NOT 'create evil', just the means by which it 'came into existence'.

It would be like........... the space shuttle. While the intellect bestowed upon us making it POSSIBLE for us to be ABLE to build a 'space ship', God didn't build it himself. It was what WE chose to DO with what we were GIVEN. King of like 'evil'.

And you claim that God is impotent. Nonsense. All that exists was created by and BELONGS to God. Open your eyes and look around. Everything that you see is ultimately God's creation. Impotent? I think not.

We will ALL die. The shell that our spirit and soul is contained within is TEMPORARY. It has NO bearing on eternity. And ONE day, God WILL destroy that which is evil. But the time is not right YET. And those that are able to overcome evil THROUGH Love WILL continue in existence. Those that don't will most likely 'cease to exist'. And those that outright serve Satan will receive the same fate as Satan and his angels, (demons).

So, it's one thing to disagree with 'religion' or 'faith' but surely you don't hope to impress or sway anyone with such limited 'possibilities' as you have stated. For you left out the one that would seem MOST appropriate: God, through the gift of 'free will' made it POSSIBLE for those GIVEN the gift to CHOOSE rebelion or NOT to LOVE. That He is NOT impotent but PATIENT. And that one day he will 'weed out' the ones that are unable to come to an understanding and practicing of that which we were created to BE.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[turnorburn]

James 4:1 From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.
3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.
4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.


turnorburn

 

[GojuBrian]

I have suffered:

The death of my 10yr old brother due to cerebral paulsy.

The loss of my mother by the means of a violent murder, had to have a closed casket.

Had cancer in 2005, lost my wife,my job,my military duties. Left alone with cancer,couldn't work due to the two surgeries and chemotherapy with two children to care for.

I can't for the life of me see why anyone would blame God for these sufferings,yet the same people congratulate themselves when they land that job, get that house,car,etc...

I only see non-belief as a selfish act and someone not willing to repent and relenquish control, any or all of those.

God allows things to happen so people can get from where they are to where they are supposed to be.

Today I am free in Christ Jesus no matter what troubles come my way, and you, no matter who you are, where you come from,or what you are going through, can be too!!

Why suffering? Because he is the potter and we are the clay. "Mold me and make me Lord."

 

[Silver Bullet]

As you know, my position on the problem of evil is that we should consider it solved: God is either impotent, evil, or does not exist (in which case, there is no problem).

SB

And my position is that for you as a non-believer there is no such thing as evil, therefore no problem exists. I don't see how you can fail to recognize that. As soon as you acknowledge the existence of evil, your position is in trouble.

Sorry, but I don't understand your comments. I acknowledge that people do evil or wrong things. It is a clear fact that humans repeatedly fail to live up to their moral obligations to others. Why is my position as a non-believer in Christian dogma in trouble because of that? Is it because you believe that there are no objective moral truths without them being dictated to us by God? If so, I would recommend watching the following debate including WIlliam Lane Craig, considered to be one of the foremost Christian thinkers of our time:

http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/693

I'd be happy to discuss with you after you watch the debate, or immediately if I've mis-anticipated your comments.

SB

 

[Ret]

God allows things to happen so people can get from where they are to where they are supposed to be.

Today I am free in Christ Jesus no matter what troubles come my way, and you, no matter who you are, where you come from,or what you are going through, can be too!!

Why suffering? Because he is the potter and we are the clay. "Mold me and make me Lord."

:amen

Eccl 3:1-4
3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; KJV

There is TIME for everything under the sun...Ret

 

[Silver Bullet]

I am not simply sating that "God has the big picture and we cannot understand it". I am hoping to give a detailed account of that picture, showing how everything fits together. That is entirely different from a vague "well this benevolent God has a big picture that we cannot understand, so I'll just assume that God uses evil for good in that framework" - I am not doing this at all. I am saying that the specifics of how God uses evil for good are indeed comprehensible to us.

Well Drew, are you going to enlighten us and fill in the details here demonstrating how your explanation of God's apparently evil actions are indeed the very best that he could do?

As you know, my position on the problem of evil is that we should consider it solved: God is either impotent, evil, or does not exist (in which case, there is no problem).

SB

Hi Drew,

Its been a couple of months . . . any progress?

SB