Why has God permitted suffering?

[Silver Bullet]

It does not make sense that God intervenes to cause all good, but doesn't intervene to stop evil.

I don't think it is the case that God intervenes to cause all good and not to prevent evil.

Paidion,

Sorry if I am having such a hard time with this.

I believe you’ve either said or would agree with the following:
1. All good comes from God
2. No good comes from people
3. God “indirectly influences people to do goodâ€Â
4. In general, or most of the time, God does not directly intervene to cause good
5. God neither directly nor indirectly contributes to evil

If all good comes from God, and no good comes from people, then all people must be created morally neutral.

We can’t be created morally evil to any extent, because that would mean that God is contributing directly to evil, and this can’t happen.

We can’t be created morally good to any extent, because that would mean that God is directly intervening to cause good, which you’ve said doesn’t happen either (with rare exceptions).

So as I said, we must be created morally neutral. Morally neutral must mean that (i) we would choose good 50% of the time and evil 50% of the time (which is the same as saying that we would always have a 50/50 chance of choosing good or evil). We’d have to respect the overall proportion of good/evil choices that we make, though we would have some free will in the individual choices themselves.

Upon this background, there would be God’s indirect influence upon us to do good.

Whether morally neutral people choose to commit evil or good then depends only on how much God "influences them indirectly" to do good, and by default, that also determines their propensity to be evil.

No matter what words you choose to describe how God gets goodness into a world where he is the sole source of all goodness (“interventionâ€Â, “indirect influenceâ€Â), must he not ultimately be responsible for it, and isn't he then also responsible for the evil that exists by not Àœinfluencing indirectly†to a greater extent?

What have I got wrong here?

Best,
SB

 

[disruptor]

What you have wrong is that the God-is-love arguments presented by some in this thread are not really the complete Biblical picture.

As I said before, God says He creates evil:

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

All attempts to pin the blame on Adam, Eve, the Serpent, Satan, Free Will, mankind and so on look rather futile when faced with God's own admission. But it is only because God creates evil that He ultimately has full dominion over it.

 

[Paidion]

Distuptor, Isaiah 45:7 is not about moral evil.

The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. NASB

God seems to be saying that all conditions have their ultimate origin in Him because He is the creator----- light and darkness, well-being and calamity.

That is a far cry from saying that God creates moral evil: all the murders, rapes, tortures, hateful verbal attacks, etc.etc.etc. Man does these things through his free will ---- unless, of course, you think God is responsible because He created man with a free will, and so risked man's commission of evil as well as good.

 

[Paidion]

Silver Bullet, perhaps you are having a hard time with this due to my lack of clarity in explaining.

I believe you’ve either said or would agree with the following:
1. All good comes from God

Yes. I see it as God's influence on man, especially those who listen to His voice and follow Him. I don't see it as God's independent causation, and therefore don't see it as intervention in the sense of unilateral action on God's part. I see it as man coöperating with God's influence either consciously, if he has a relationship with God, or unconsciously if he doesn't.

2. No good comes from people

By this, I meant no good comes from people apart from God's influence. There are many good people who are atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, animists ---- in short, non-Christians. Some of them do not ascribe their goodness to God; they feel that it comes from themselves. I think it comes from God's influence (but nothing is forced upon them). But I may be wrong. Perhaps God simply created man with the potential for doing good things, because of the free will God gave him.

I think how this goodness differs with a disciple of Christ is that , whereas the non-disciple often does good acts, even self-sacrificing acts, I think the disciple, having the indwelling presence of the Father and the Son, is more consistent in his goodness, and his avoidance of evil.

3. God “indirectly influences people to do goodâ€Â

Yep --- as already described

4. In general, or most of the time, God does not directly intervene to cause good

Correct. For example, there are very few cases where God physically heals someone. Yet I know of some such cases. There are very few cases where God strikes down someone about to murder, rape, or torture.

5. God neither directly nor indirectly contributes to evil

Correct. I am quite sure of this. Or would you consider that His creation of man with a free will would be "contributing to evil" because of the very possibility of evil? I think not. For every free will agent, though influenced by many factors (including God) is in a sense an independent chooser, and therefore responsible for his own actions.

If all good comes from God, and no good comes from people, then all people must be created morally neutral. We can’t be created morally evil to any extent, because that would mean that God is contributing directly to evil, and this can’t happen.

True. Adam and Eve, the first human pair were created morally neutral.

We can’t be created morally good to any extent, because that would mean that God is directly intervening to cause good, which you’ve said doesn’t happen either (with rare exceptions).

No, Adam and Eve were not created morally good.

Many Christians, myself included, believe that having rebelled against God, Adam and Eve began to experience immorality and death working in them, and that this was passed on biologically to their offspring right down to all people of the earth in the present day. This accounts for a tendency toward wrongdoing in people. So this biological tendency is a great influence toward evil actions in all of humanity.

So as I said, we must be created morally neutral. Morally neutral must mean that (i) we would choose good 50% of the time and evil 50% of the time (which is the same as saying that we would always have a 50/50 chance of choosing good or evil). We’d have to respect the overall proportion of good/evil choices that we make, though we would have some free will in the individual choices themselves.

Since we haven't been directly created by God, but are all biological descendants of Adam and Eve, the above does not apply. I think mankind as a whole is more likely to choose evil rather than good because of the inherited tendency to do so. Yet evil is restrained in many societies by police, the legal system, social pressure, and many other complexities, so that in some countries it is possible to live a relatively pleasant life.

Upon this background, there would be God’s indirect influence upon us to do good.

Yes, I think God's influence is ever present in people. God's ultimate purpose is to eradicate wrong doing altogether.

... He [Christ] has now appeared once at the end of the ages to do away with sin through the sacrifice of Himself. Hebrews 9:26

 

[Silver Bullet]

Many Christians, myself included, believe that having rebelled against God, Adam and Eve began to experience immorality and death working in them, and that this was passed on biologically to their offspring right down to all people of the earth in the present day. This accounts for a tendency toward wrongdoing in people. So this biological tendency is a great influence toward evil actions in all of humanity.

Thanks for taking the time Paidion. I can tell that you are generous spirit and a kind man.

Biologically speaking, people don't inherit experiences from their parents, so its not clear to me how Adam and Eve could have deviated for moral neutrality by making one choice, and then genetically passed on to all of their offspring a tendancy to evil. It could be argued that God somehow affected biology to ensure that their tendancy to evil was passed on to their offspring, but then that would be God interfering directly to cause evil (a concept that others who have posted here seem to support from scripture, where I am no expert).

You are essentially blaming evil on Adam and Eve.

This is a very nice story, it is logically consistent (except for the falsehood of experience heritability), and it allows us to blame somebody other than God. Forgive me if it seems entirely unpersuasive:

1. God is all good and all goodness comes only from him.
2. Evil is due to Adam and Eve, those screw-ups God created who've ruined it for all the billions and billions of us who've lived since for millennia.
3. Thank God I have free will which, because of them its not totally free because I have an inborn tendancy to evil.
4. My only hope in this world where happiness and pain and suffering seem to occur without any reason or fairness or justice is the God who as good incarnate continues to punish us for their bad behavior by permitting this situation to endure, seemingly so that we can have modestly free will to choose him as a test for the prize of eternal bliss.

Please note, I am only trying to paraphrase in plain language, as one might use in a casual conversation. I do respect these views, which, while controversial, are commonly held among people around the world.

Best,
SB

 

[disruptor]

Paidion: Man does these things through his free will ---- unless, of course, you think God is responsible because He created man with a free will, and so risked man's commission of evil as well as good.

What I think is that no-one ever wins an argument against an atheist using the "God-is-good" line of reasoning. The deluded atheist merely points to the presence of "evil" in our world, uses the "how-can-a-supposedly-good-God-allow-this-to-happen?" line, leaving the believer unable to answer convincingly:

Silver Bullet: .... Forgive me if it seems entirely unpersuasive

So I just say: yes, God is actually responsible for evil (just like He says), but it's our duty as believers to love and praise Him as all-good. Even when personal loss and misery is inflicted on us it is STILL our task to praise Him as good (q.v. book of Job). It's easy to praise God when living in freedom and plenty – quite another to praise God in destitution, loss and misery (as the USA and UK are rapidly finding out).

2Pe 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.

 

[Silver Bullet]

What I think is that no-one ever wins an argument against an atheist using the "God-is-good" line of reasoning.

I just want to say that I don't consider myself having an argument with Paidion, but rather a discussion. I mean to specifically point out that I think very highly of Paidion, and if there is any offence perceived in my messages, it was not intended. I certainly hope that I have made that clear in my previous messages, but this message is intended in case I failed.

SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

What I think is that no-one ever wins an argument against an atheist using the "God-is-good" line of reasoning . . .

So I just say: yes, God is actually responsible for evil (just like He says), but it's our duty as believers to love and praise Him as all-good. Even when personal loss and misery is inflicted on us it is STILL our task to praise Him as good (q.v. book of Job).

Is the latter supposed to be persuasive?

I mean, who or what else that causes "evil", "personal loss", and "misery" would a human respect, let alone worship?

I think that idea offends many reasonable people.

Has it been effective in dealing with atheists in the past for you?

Best,
SB

 

[Joe67]

I would be interested to know what people think about this topic? Iam sure we all believe that God is Love. In line with that scripture what are your viewpoints as to why there is so much pain in the world today?

emmaukOO7,

Love suffers long, even unto death. Love has hope of resurrection. Romans 5:5.

God so loved that He gave His Only-begotten...

Isa 63:9
9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: ASV

Suffer it to be so.

Joe

 

[disruptor]

Silver Bullet: I mean, who or what else that causes "evil", "personal loss", and "misery" would a human respect, let alone worship?… I think that idea offends many reasonable people.

Who said Christians were "reasonable"?

Faith and Biblical authority (among other things) are more important than an arbitrary definition of "reason" given by some atheist, pharisee or other non-Christian. So if a "reasonable" person is offended by a Christian calling God "good" despite His involvement in human suffering, well, that's just too bad. I might add that being "offended" is an emotional reaction that has nothing to do with "reason" anyway.

Also, many believers worship and respect God so that He doesn’t inflict the aforementioned "evil", "personal loss" and "misery" on them. The Bible is full of examples of God SMITING unbelievers or those He doesn't like, so praising God in order not to be thus smitten is quite "reasonable".

1Pe 2:17 …Fear God.

You might also consider the presence in other world religions of hostile and threatening deities of every kind, most of whom have to be appeased, often by sacrifice, self-mortification, or ascesis, in order NOT to unleash various forms of havoc, destruction, disease etc. Keeping gods satisfied is a serious business in ALL religions.

Silver Bullet: Has it been effective in dealing with atheists in the past for you?

It depends what you mean by "dealing with atheists". As you know, there are traditional Christian methods for "dealing with" atheists, but whether I shall have any success in re-introducing these methods into modern society remains to be seen.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Who said Christians were "reasonable"?

Also, many believers worship and respect God so that He doesn’t inflict the aforementioned "evil", "personal loss" and "misery" on them.

1Pe 2:17 …Fear God.

While I congratulate you on remaining internally consistent with the tenets of your faith, I must also say that suggesting that Christians are not reasonable and that fear is a main motivator for your faith is just about the worst and weakest endorsement of Christianity I have ever heard.

Perhaps, if in studying the other religions you mentioned, one could discover a God who was more evil and inflicted more misery than Yawheh (granted, this may be difficult or impossible), I wonder if you might be motivated to worship him even more? Or would that be too reasonable for a Christian? (Referring to your reasoning - not mine).

Thanks,
SB

 

[Silver Bullet]

Silver Bullet: Has it been effective in dealing with atheists in the past for you?

It depends what you mean by "dealing with atheists". As you know, there are traditional Christian methods for "dealing with" atheists, but whether I shall have any success in re-introducing these methods into modern society remains to be seen.

Forgive me, but I am unaware of what the "traditional Christian methods of dealing with atheists", which you would like to re-introduce into modern society, are.

Can you elaborate and clarify the Christian position here?

Thanks,
SB

 

[Joe67]

God has given a license for suffering:
Phil 3:10-11
10 that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed unto his death;

11 if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead. ASV

In Jesus Christ.

Joe

 

[Drew]

Perhaps, if in studying the other religions you mentioned, one could discover a God who was more evil and inflicted more misery than Yawheh

Have you considered the possibilty that God may, actually, have had no choice but to "inflict the suffering" you perceive Him to have done.

I am a Christian and I take a position on this that will probably have little support from other Christians.

But, I am quite confident of this: The Scriptures paint a story where God gives the Torah - the Law of Moses - to the Jews in order to make them more sinful. Yes, I mean what I have said.

A well-respected New Testament scholar makes this very argument - I wish I was smart enough to claim it as my own.

In any event, without giving the details, it appears that God had to this in order to "fix" the fallen world.

Here is a crude analogy. We subject people to chemotherapy and make them suffer. Does this mean we are evil? Of course not. But this is the best thing we can do in the long term interests of the patient.

Perhaps the same is true for God. Perhaps He has no way to fix the broken world without inflicting suffering on some.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Perhaps the same is true for God. Perhaps He has no way to fix the broken world without inflicting suffering on some.

Thanks Drew. I think this has come up earlier in this thread, or perhaps it was another one that dealt with the problem of evil. As long as it is possible that God has a good reason for evil, the logical proof of the problem of evil falls apart.

Of course, absolutely anything can be rationalized with this loophole.

Apart from requiring the leap of faith to believe in God, it requires another leap of faith to believe that He is completely benevolent given all the mindless suffering and misery we see around us.

Its simply not persuasive, neither to me, nor to many. Perhaps that is at least partly because believers use their own standards of morality in determining when they think that God is good, but then employ a double standard in saying that their own standard of morality is insufficient to judge when God appears to be responsible for evil ("God is good . . . look and see how we can tell that He is good: here is the Sermon on the Mount, etc . . . He just can't be evil - He must have some benevolent reason for permitting or causing all the evil that has been described that we can't see or understand . . . but we sure can say when He is good!)

Perhaps God is evil but claims to be good and permits some good because He has no choice; perhaps He needs to give us the impression that He is good in order to "fix" this good world and make it evil?

How can one honestly know? How can one organize a life around this stuff?

Thanks again,
SB

 

[Joe67]

Drew,

I am posting this Scripture in regard to your last post.

Rom 5:20
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. KJV

And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; NAS

And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; ASV

Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. NKJ

The law was added so that the trespass might increase. NIV

The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; NASU

Joe

 

[Drew]

Drew,

I am posting this Scripture in regard to your last post.

Rom 5:20
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. KJV
etc.

Bingo. You have identified a key text that underpins my position on this. And there is also these from Romans 7:

5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.

For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death

Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful

Note the "in order that" - suggestive of divine intent. I think it is clear that Paul believes the Torah actually makes Israel more sinful and that this is God's plan.

If this is so, it is a relatively easy jump to imagine that God uses evil and suffering to some higher purpose - and perhaps He has no choice (I reject what I think are naive and simplistic notions that "God can do whatever He wants").

 

[Drew]

As long as it is possible that God has a good reason for evil, the logical proof of the problem of evil falls apart.

Agree.

Of course, absolutely anything can be rationalized with this loophole.

As you will discover, the position I am advocating is not simply a "well maybe God has no choice" kind of argument. There is an entire story that has yet to be told that makes it exceedingly plausible that God indeed was forced to essentially "stimulate sin into action" in order to fulfill His purposes. I do not say this lightly - I realize how deeply heretical this may seem to some Christians who will read this. I cannot force them to open their minds to this possibility, I can only ask that they do so.

And obviously you may well reject the enitre Biblical narrative - that is your right. But, it will be shown that this position I am proposing is not a wild leap of faith - it is an argument that fits very well into the Biblical story and explains much. So it is not a "stab in the dark" by any means.

...it requires another leap of faith to believe that He is completely benevolent given all the mindless suffering and misery we see around us.

I disagree. Given the strong explanatory force of the proposal I will offer, it is not a leap of faith at all.

Perhaps that is at least partly because believers use their own standards of morality in determining when they think that God is good, but then employ a double standard in saying that their own standard of morality is insufficient to judge when God appears to be responsible for evil ("God is good . . . look and see how we can tell that He is good: here is the Sermon on the Mount, etc . . . He just can't be evil - He must have some benevolent reason for permitting or causing all the evil that has been described that we can't see or understand . . . but we sure can say when He is good!)

There is no inconsistency at all with asserting we (humans) should live according to a certain moral "code" and yet acknowledge that God had no choice but to stimulate violations of that code in human beings to accomplish His purposes. This seems contradictory but it really is not.

Analogy: We are told to not commit murder. Fine - that is a sensible moral guideline. But, suppose that you, as a "small g" god knew what HItler was going to do later in his life, and that if he were stopped, much evil would be averted. And yet you are constrained in your options to the point where you need to "put it into somebody's mind" to kill Hitler at age 20. So that's what you do. That doesn't change the fact that for us mere humans, the guideline "you shall not murder" is a good one. Do you understand what I mean? Of course, in this scenario, there would indeed be a problems if the person "stimulated to kill Hitler" is then held morally culpable for this.

How can one honestly know? How can one organize a life around this stuff?

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.

For you Christians out there, I know this seems to have me in the position in ascribing "evil actions" to God. Well, lets 'fess up. There are lots of accounts in the Old Testament of God ordering wholesale slaughter of peoples - men, women, babes in arms. That is rough stuff that we Christians often sweep under the rug or to try to explain with "God is judging that people". Well do you really believe that a babe in arms deserves to be put to the sword?

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, inflicting suffering on the cancer patient by filling them with toxic chemicals. And yet, of course, we know that the doctor is actually healing.

 

[Silver Bullet]

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.

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.

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.

I am open ears: lay out the argument and please convince me otherwise

Best,
SB

 

[JoJo]

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.