Reply to Why does God allow suffering?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Why does God allow suffering? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

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?[/quote]
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."[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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?  
[/quote]

This is very dumb logic.

We have evidence of fires, right?

End of argument.[/quote]

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.  
 
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

Again, your logic [b]massively fails.[/b]  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?[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics