Why does God allow suffering?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This angry person eventually shows up on every thread, demanding proof of things that require faith. All the faithful need to pray for this person.

Some corrections:

1. PP, and not angry
>>>2. There are way more than one of us !!!
3. Asking for proof of claims made and requesting proper logic and reason, not demanding anything
4. Politely suggest you not waste your prayers on me, they won't help regardless of which of us is right

Have a nice evening!

Definitely

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm sorry for your loss, PP. The Bible does have an answer for this in Isaiah 57:
"The righteous man perishes,
and no one lays it to heart;
devout men are taken away,
while no one understands.
For the righteous man is taken away from calamity;
he enters into peace;
they rest in their beds
who walk in their uprightness."

The Bible addresses it, but hardly answers it. Makes it sound like death is better than life for the "righteous man" and says nothing about ending the good he was doing on earth, removing him before he wanted to leave, or the pain his loved ones experience because he's gone. The focus is on the peace he experiences once dead.

It seems very selfish, unlike the righteous man himself who was doing so much good on Earth. Apparently being selected by God to die and go to heaven early is preferable in God's eyes than helping people while alive.

God could have given him more time to do good on earth before accepting him into heaven for eternity, but chose not to. I bet if God had asked the "righteous man" if he wanted an early ticket to heaven, he would have turned down the offer, but that's not God's way. He acts randomly, as if he doesn't exist.

This is so odd.
Because something acts randomly, it must not exist? Do the fires on the west coast exist?

For that matter, does fire exist at all? Some people say it’s good and helpful, others say it’s dangerous and seemingly random, still others say that while we don’t understand it completely, there are rules that it follows if you get to know it and study it. They may seem unfair and arbitrary, but they are there.
If you had never seen fire, would you believe in it’s existence? Do you think that if you somehow stop believing in it because it doesn’t follow rules you agree with, then it will cease to exist?

This is very dumb logic.

We have evidence of fires, right?

End of argument.

So, before we had evidence of microorganisms, did they still exist? Yes. Of course. They didn’t exist only if you believed in them or knew about them. You cannot prove a negative. The fact that we DON’T have evidence of something or that something seems to behave in ways that seem illogical or unintelligible doesn’t mean that the thing doesn’t exist.

More dumb logic.

In fact, far more inane.

Yes, microorganisms existed before we had evidence of them. Guess what? No one believed in them until we did have evidence. No one blamed disease on them until we had evidence. And certainly, no one worshipped them, with evidence or without.

You need to stop kicking the ball. It keeps going in the other team's net.

Dude. There is no net, no ball, and no team. There is just you. All sorts of things exist whether or not you personally believe in them, understand them, or think they make sense. The fact that you don’t understand something is not evidence that it doesn’t exist.

And no, people didn’t worship microorganisms before they knew about them, but they still washed their hands and quarantined people who were ill. You can understand and follow some basic rules without completely understanding the reasoning for them.

Again, your logic massively fails. You don't believe in things for which there is no evidence. And the ball thing was a metaphor, and you continue to support its premise.

Do you believe in unicorns or leprechauns? Why not?

I’m really sorry. I cannot continue this with you.
You aren’t really presenting an argument other than to tell me, without explanation, that I am wrong. This isnt really an interesting debate or discussion. I wish you well.

I know it is difficult and uninteresting to you to have to answer hard questions that put your foundational beliefs in questions. And TO BE CLEAR: I am not claiming you are wrong in your beliefs. Just that your logic in defense of them is incredibly faulty.

I think you understand that it is, or you would answer the questions.

What questions?
Is there evidence of fires? Do I believe in unicorns?
You think my logic is faulty because I won’t answer these childish questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm sorry for your loss, PP. The Bible does have an answer for this in Isaiah 57:
"The righteous man perishes,
and no one lays it to heart;
devout men are taken away,
while no one understands.
For the righteous man is taken away from calamity;
he enters into peace;
they rest in their beds
who walk in their uprightness."

The Bible addresses it, but hardly answers it. Makes it sound like death is better than life for the "righteous man" and says nothing about ending the good he was doing on earth, removing him before he wanted to leave, or the pain his loved ones experience because he's gone. The focus is on the peace he experiences once dead.

It seems very selfish, unlike the righteous man himself who was doing so much good on Earth. Apparently being selected by God to die and go to heaven early is preferable in God's eyes than helping people while alive.

God could have given him more time to do good on earth before accepting him into heaven for eternity, but chose not to. I bet if God had asked the "righteous man" if he wanted an early ticket to heaven, he would have turned down the offer, but that's not God's way. He acts randomly, as if he doesn't exist.

This is so odd.
Because something acts randomly, it must not exist? Do the fires on the west coast exist?

For that matter, does fire exist at all? Some people say it’s good and helpful, others say it’s dangerous and seemingly random, still others say that while we don’t understand it completely, there are rules that it follows if you get to know it and study it. They may seem unfair and arbitrary, but they are there.
If you had never seen fire, would you believe in it’s existence? Do you think that if you somehow stop believing in it because it doesn’t follow rules you agree with, then it will cease to exist?

This is very dumb logic.

We have evidence of fires, right?

End of argument.

So, before we had evidence of microorganisms, did they still exist? Yes. Of course. They didn’t exist only if you believed in them or knew about them. You cannot prove a negative. The fact that we DON’T have evidence of something or that something seems to behave in ways that seem illogical or unintelligible doesn’t mean that the thing doesn’t exist.

More dumb logic.

In fact, far more inane.

Yes, microorganisms existed before we had evidence of them. Guess what? No one believed in them until we did have evidence. No one blamed disease on them until we had evidence. And certainly, no one worshipped them, with evidence or without.

You need to stop kicking the ball. It keeps going in the other team's net.

Dude. There is no net, no ball, and no team. There is just you. All sorts of things exist whether or not you personally believe in them, understand them, or think they make sense. The fact that you don’t understand something is not evidence that it doesn’t exist.

And no, people didn’t worship microorganisms before they knew about them, but they still washed their hands and quarantined people who were ill. You can understand and follow some basic rules without completely understanding the reasoning for them.

Again, your logic massively fails. You don't believe in things for which there is no evidence. And the ball thing was a metaphor, and you continue to support its premise.

Do you believe in unicorns or leprechauns? Why not?

I’m really sorry. I cannot continue this with you.
You aren’t really presenting an argument other than to tell me, without explanation, that I am wrong. This isnt really an interesting debate or discussion. I wish you well.

I know it is difficult and uninteresting to you to have to answer hard questions that put your foundational beliefs in questions. And TO BE CLEAR: I am not claiming you are wrong in your beliefs. Just that your logic in defense of them is incredibly faulty.

I think you understand that it is, or you would answer the questions.

What questions?
Is there evidence of fires? Do I believe in unicorns?
You think my logic is faulty because I won’t answer these childish questions?

No, your logic is faulty because you presented logically faulty positions. You won't answer the questions because you know that requires your admission that the logic is faulty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm sorry for your loss, PP. The Bible does have an answer for this in Isaiah 57:
"The righteous man perishes,
and no one lays it to heart;
devout men are taken away,
while no one understands.
For the righteous man is taken away from calamity;
he enters into peace;
they rest in their beds
who walk in their uprightness."

The Bible addresses it, but hardly answers it. Makes it sound like death is better than life for the "righteous man" and says nothing about ending the good he was doing on earth, removing him before he wanted to leave, or the pain his loved ones experience because he's gone. The focus is on the peace he experiences once dead.

It seems very selfish, unlike the righteous man himself who was doing so much good on Earth. Apparently being selected by God to die and go to heaven early is preferable in God's eyes than helping people while alive.

God could have given him more time to do good on earth before accepting him into heaven for eternity, but chose not to. I bet if God had asked the "righteous man" if he wanted an early ticket to heaven, he would have turned down the offer, but that's not God's way. He acts randomly, as if he doesn't exist.

This is so odd.
Because something acts randomly, it must not exist? Do the fires on the west coast exist?

For that matter, does fire exist at all? Some people say it’s good and helpful, others say it’s dangerous and seemingly random, still others say that while we don’t understand it completely, there are rules that it follows if you get to know it and study it. They may seem unfair and arbitrary, but they are there.
If you had never seen fire, would you believe in it’s existence? Do you think that if you somehow stop believing in it because it doesn’t follow rules you agree with, then it will cease to exist?

This is very dumb logic.

We have evidence of fires, right?

End of argument.

So, before we had evidence of microorganisms, did they still exist? Yes. Of course. They didn’t exist only if you believed in them or knew about them. You cannot prove a negative. The fact that we DON’T have evidence of something or that something seems to behave in ways that seem illogical or unintelligible doesn’t mean that the thing doesn’t exist.

More dumb logic.

In fact, far more inane.

Yes, microorganisms existed before we had evidence of them. Guess what? No one believed in them until we did have evidence. No one blamed disease on them until we had evidence. And certainly, no one worshipped them, with evidence or without.

You need to stop kicking the ball. It keeps going in the other team's net.

Dude. There is no net, no ball, and no team. There is just you. All sorts of things exist whether or not you personally believe in them, understand them, or think they make sense. The fact that you don’t understand something is not evidence that it doesn’t exist.

And no, people didn’t worship microorganisms before they knew about them, but they still washed their hands and quarantined people who were ill. You can understand and follow some basic rules without completely understanding the reasoning for them.

Again, your logic massively fails. You don't believe in things for which there is no evidence. And the ball thing was a metaphor, and you continue to support its premise.

Do you believe in unicorns or leprechauns? Why not?

I’m really sorry. I cannot continue this with you.
You aren’t really presenting an argument other than to tell me, without explanation, that I am wrong. This isnt really an interesting debate or discussion. I wish you well.

I know it is difficult and uninteresting to you to have to answer hard questions that put your foundational beliefs in questions. And TO BE CLEAR: I am not claiming you are wrong in your beliefs. Just that your logic in defense of them is incredibly faulty.

I think you understand that it is, or you would answer the questions.

What questions?
Is there evidence of fires? Do I believe in unicorns?
You think my logic is faulty because I won’t answer these childish questions?

No, your logic is faulty because you presented logically faulty positions. You won't answer the questions because you know that requires your admission that the logic is faulty.

I'll answer for him:

Yes, there is evidence of fires, and we know what fire is and can see it and demonstrate it and test it and even start it, so my fire analogy was obviously a terrible one.

No, I do not believe in unicorns, leprechauns, or any other unevidenced thing except the religion that I was raised in. Therefore I am guilty of the special pleading fallacy and that is demonstrably poor logic as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:God allows free will.

That's not really an answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm so sorry that you lost your husband this way. I can't think of a religion that promises only good things to good people.

Unfortunately, many good and/or innocent people die regularly of diseases and accidents (think of all the people in the Beirut explosion).

Religion can bring comfort but it can't promise a life of good things to the deserving.

How can it bring comfort if awful people have power, health, longevity and other kinder people suffer awfully? Children, the elderly, etc? Seems to me if God wanted comfort to be something he/she gives, those things would be remedied more than they are. God brings me almost no comfort and didn't when I was molested as a child, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm so sorry that you lost your husband this way. I can't think of a religion that promises only good things to good people.

Unfortunately, many good and/or innocent people die regularly of diseases and accidents (think of all the people in the Beirut explosion).

Religion can bring comfort but it can't promise a life of good things to the deserving.

How can it bring comfort if awful people have power, health, longevity and other kinder people suffer awfully? Children, the elderly, etc? Seems to me if God wanted comfort to be something he/she gives, those things would be remedied more than they are. God brings me almost no comfort and didn't when I was molested as a child, for example.

Note that it says religion CAN bring comfort. It obviously doesn't always work that way, and hasn't for you. There are. however, people who find comfort in the idea that "God works in mysterious ways" and attribute to God those times when they were comforted, while discounting the times they were not comforted as "god's will."

It requires a desire and an ability to see any situation as within the power and will of a supreme being that oversees all human life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm so sorry that you lost your husband this way. I can't think of a religion that promises only good things to good people.

Unfortunately, many good and/or innocent people die regularly of diseases and accidents (think of all the people in the Beirut explosion).

Religion can bring comfort but it can't promise a life of good things to the deserving.

How can it bring comfort if awful people have power, health, longevity and other kinder people suffer awfully? Children, the elderly, etc? Seems to me if God wanted comfort to be something he/she gives, those things would be remedied more than they are. God brings me almost no comfort and didn't when I was molested as a child, for example.

God brings comfort partly because He is a perfect parent.
If you have a good parent or someone who fills the role of a good parent, they do bring comfort, even if they don’t remedy the situation. They absolve you of any unfounded guilt or shame, take on some of your pain and sadness themselves, and give you advice on how to move forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm so sorry that you lost your husband this way. I can't think of a religion that promises only good things to good people.

Unfortunately, many good and/or innocent people die regularly of diseases and accidents (think of all the people in the Beirut explosion).

Religion can bring comfort but it can't promise a life of good things to the deserving.

How can it bring comfort if awful people have power, health, longevity and other kinder people suffer awfully? Children, the elderly, etc? Seems to me if God wanted comfort to be something he/she gives, those things would be remedied more than they are. God brings me almost no comfort and didn't when I was molested as a child, for example.

God brings comfort partly because He is a perfect parent.
If you have a good parent or someone who fills the role of a good parent, they do bring comfort, even if they don’t remedy the situation. They absolve you of any unfounded guilt or shame, take on some of your pain and sadness themselves, and give you advice on how to move forward.

Why doesn’t he spend more time making the world better and less time comforting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm so sorry that you lost your husband this way. I can't think of a religion that promises only good things to good people.

Unfortunately, many good and/or innocent people die regularly of diseases and accidents (think of all the people in the Beirut explosion).

Religion can bring comfort but it can't promise a life of good things to the deserving.

How can it bring comfort if awful people have power, health, longevity and other kinder people suffer awfully? Children, the elderly, etc? Seems to me if God wanted comfort to be something he/she gives, those things would be remedied more than they are. God brings me almost no comfort and didn't when I was molested as a child, for example.

God brings comfort partly because He is a perfect parent.
If you have a good parent or someone who fills the role of a good parent, they do bring comfort, even if they don’t remedy the situation. They absolve you of any unfounded guilt or shame, take on some of your pain and sadness themselves, and give you advice on how to move forward.

Why doesn’t he spend more time making the world better and less time comforting

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Can you give an example?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm so sorry that you lost your husband this way. I can't think of a religion that promises only good things to good people.

Unfortunately, many good and/or innocent people die regularly of diseases and accidents (think of all the people in the Beirut explosion).

Religion can bring comfort but it can't promise a life of good things to the deserving.

How can it bring comfort if awful people have power, health, longevity and other kinder people suffer awfully? Children, the elderly, etc? Seems to me if God wanted comfort to be something he/she gives, those things would be remedied more than they are. God brings me almost no comfort and didn't when I was molested as a child, for example.

God brings comfort partly because He is a perfect parent.
If you have a good parent or someone who fills the role of a good parent, they do bring comfort, even if they don’t remedy the situation. They absolve you of any unfounded guilt or shame, take on some of your pain and sadness themselves, and give you advice on how to move forward.

I genuinely don't mean any offense, but to anyone with minimal critical thinking skills, this sounds like a metric ton of bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm so sorry that you lost your husband this way. I can't think of a religion that promises only good things to good people.

Unfortunately, many good and/or innocent people die regularly of diseases and accidents (think of all the people in the Beirut explosion).

Religion can bring comfort but it can't promise a life of good things to the deserving.

How can it bring comfort if awful people have power, health, longevity and other kinder people suffer awfully? Children, the elderly, etc? Seems to me if God wanted comfort to be something he/she gives, those things would be remedied more than they are. God brings me almost no comfort and didn't when I was molested as a child, for example.

God brings comfort partly because He is a perfect parent.
If you have a good parent or someone who fills the role of a good parent, they do bring comfort, even if they don’t remedy the situation. They absolve you of any unfounded guilt or shame, take on some of your pain and sadness themselves, and give you advice on how to move forward.

I genuinely don't mean any offense, but to anyone with minimal critical thinking skills, this sounds like a metric ton of bullshit.

Lol...is that what you tell your kids when they are crying?
Or do your kids never cry because you never let them fall and clear the way of every obstacle?
I

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm so sorry that you lost your husband this way. I can't think of a religion that promises only good things to good people.

Unfortunately, many good and/or innocent people die regularly of diseases and accidents (think of all the people in the Beirut explosion).

Religion can bring comfort but it can't promise a life of good things to the deserving.

How can it bring comfort if awful people have power, health, longevity and other kinder people suffer awfully? Children, the elderly, etc? Seems to me if God wanted comfort to be something he/she gives, those things would be remedied more than they are. God brings me almost no comfort and didn't when I was molested as a child, for example.

God brings comfort partly because He is a perfect parent.
If you have a good parent or someone who fills the role of a good parent, they do bring comfort, even if they don’t remedy the situation. They absolve you of any unfounded guilt or shame, take on some of your pain and sadness themselves, and give you advice on how to move forward.

I genuinely don't mean any offense, but to anyone with minimal critical thinking skills, this sounds like a metric ton of bullshit.

Lol...is that what you tell your kids when they are crying?
Or do your kids never cry because you never let them fall and clear the way of every obstacle?
I

I don't tell them the invisible sky wizard will fix everything after they die, that's for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm so sorry that you lost your husband this way. I can't think of a religion that promises only good things to good people.

Unfortunately, many good and/or innocent people die regularly of diseases and accidents (think of all the people in the Beirut explosion).

Religion can bring comfort but it can't promise a life of good things to the deserving.

How can it bring comfort if awful people have power, health, longevity and other kinder people suffer awfully? Children, the elderly, etc? Seems to me if God wanted comfort to be something he/she gives, those things would be remedied more than they are. God brings me almost no comfort and didn't when I was molested as a child, for example.

God brings comfort partly because He is a perfect parent.
If you have a good parent or someone who fills the role of a good parent, they do bring comfort, even if they don’t remedy the situation. They absolve you of any unfounded guilt or shame, take on some of your pain and sadness themselves, and give you advice on how to move forward.

I genuinely don't mean any offense, but to anyone with minimal critical thinking skills, this sounds like a metric ton of bullshit.

Lol...is that what you tell your kids when they are crying?
Or do your kids never cry because you never let them fall and clear the way of every obstacle?
I

I don't tell them the invisible sky wizard will fix everything after they die, that's for sure.

Ok. But we were talking about how you could still find comfort in a close relationship with someone who was NOT going to fix everything for you.
Look. Your parents are terrible. They should have protected you, and they should have created an environment where you felt loved and trusted enough to go to them when you were hurt. The way that your parents behaved...that’s not how parents are supposed to be. Children, even adult children, are supposed to be able to go to their parents for love, support, and comfort.
I hope you find someone in your life who can give you this. And I hope you can find a way to be there for your own children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only persuasive answer I have heard (from my DH who grew up Catholic and also studied Buddhism) is that God allows suffering to teach us compassion and empathy. Only if you have experienced suffering can you relate to those who are presently suffering and do "good" things to help them.

There is also the free will explanation (i.e., people choose to inflect suffering on others) but, to me, that is not fully persuasive. Free will does not account for things that are outside human control, like children dying of cancer or natural disasters.

This question is THE major impediment to my faith. Either God is all powerful and somewhat apathetic or sadistic to allow profound suffering, or God is not all powerful. Both things cannot be true. So I really, really struggle with this and don't have a good answer.

I’ve struggled horribly with my faith since my husband died suddenly of a rare cancer. He spent his adult life practicing medicine and helping others....but alas there was no help for him. He was such a wonderful person. I cannot understand why....why?

I'm so sorry that you lost your husband this way. I can't think of a religion that promises only good things to good people.

Unfortunately, many good and/or innocent people die regularly of diseases and accidents (think of all the people in the Beirut explosion).

Religion can bring comfort but it can't promise a life of good things to the deserving.

How can it bring comfort if awful people have power, health, longevity and other kinder people suffer awfully? Children, the elderly, etc? Seems to me if God wanted comfort to be something he/she gives, those things would be remedied more than they are. God brings me almost no comfort and didn't when I was molested as a child, for example.

God brings comfort partly because He is a perfect parent.
If you have a good parent or someone who fills the role of a good parent, they do bring comfort, even if they don’t remedy the situation. They absolve you of any unfounded guilt or shame, take on some of your pain and sadness themselves, and give you advice on how to move forward.

I genuinely don't mean any offense, but to anyone with minimal critical thinking skills, this sounds like a metric ton of bullshit.

Lol...is that what you tell your kids when they are crying?
Or do your kids never cry because you never let them fall and clear the way of every obstacle?
I

I don't tell them the invisible sky wizard will fix everything after they die, that's for sure.

Ok. But we were talking about how you could still find comfort in a close relationship with someone who was NOT going to fix everything for you.
Look. Your parents are terrible. They should have protected you, and they should have created an environment where you felt loved and trusted enough to go to them when you were hurt. The way that your parents behaved...that’s not how parents are supposed to be. Children, even adult children, are supposed to be able to go to their parents for love, support, and comfort.
I hope you find someone in your life who can give you this. And I hope you can find a way to be there for your own children.

Well, if you are trying to insult both my parents and my parenting skills, please proceed directly to GFY. All are awesome and you know nothing about it. It’s your sky father that is causing all the chaos. He’s the one who is a rat.

Other than that, your post is insane word salad.