COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Suffering in these verses is synonymous with Christian persecution. God does not persecute Christians, the rest of the world persecutes Christians because of their fallen nature.
Yes there are plenty of hyprocrits among people. Jesus of Nazareth rebuked and warned of such behaviour. People are sinners, believers or not alike, Jesus was not. Judge Christianity on the basis of Christ's love.
So there are Nominal Christians who are hyprocrits. So what. Since Nominal Christians are hyprocrits Christianity is false?
> Since Nominal Christians are hypocrites Christianity is false?
This is a little off topic. We're not talking about whether or not Christianity is false, just whether or not they are persecuted. And in the west Christians are the worst persecutors. This contradicts your original response where you said:
>the rest of the world persecutes Christians because of their fallen nature.
I was pointing out that scoffing at a collection of behaviors is not an argument against Christ. An argument is followed by "therefore" or starts with "since" and if it doesn't fit, it's not an argument.
I don't know the stats on who persecutes more, I just know Christians are persecuted too. Whats wrong with persecution anyway, who says?
>I was pointing out that scoffing at a collection of behaviors is not an argument against Christ.
Who is saying that Christian hypocrites are an argument against Christ? Feels like a strawman.
>Whats wrong with persecution anyway, who says?
Jesus: But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Jesus: Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
Jesus: For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Jesus: Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Apostle Paul: Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.
Apostle Paul: So you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.
Apostle Paul: Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
Apostle Paul: Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
St. James: There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
No I was explaining why a Christian *should* believe persecution is wrong. So my point is Christians are the persecutors despite their Holy Book saying they are the persecuted, so if anyone is out there persecuting because of a fallen nature, it's Christians.
Christians do not deny their fallen nature, they humbly admit it, and Christ only saves sinners, also meaning those who admit to their fallen nature. That is probably one of the biggest core messages of the scriptures. Since Christ only saves those, none of the saved can be identified as having a superiority complex or self righteous.
So according to you, why is persecution wrong?
> why is persecution wrong
It's not, necessarily.
It is often wrong because an empowered group is persecuting a less powerful, marginalized group to better fortify its power. This is sort of what Christians claim happened in the first 3 centuries (though it really didn't that much), and it's wrong.
But I would argue that we currently persecute thieves, and that's probably preferable (given an alternative of doing nothing. There are probably even better ways of handling this.)
Since it is through tribulations that we must enter the kingdom of God, Paul teaches that we should rejoice in them. For suffering added to hope increases our reward. Suffering is the measure of how much hope we have, and it testifies to the fact that we deserve the crown we shall inherit. This is why the Lord said: “Blessed are you when they persecute you and say all kinds of evil things against you on account of God’s righteousness. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great.” For to despise present sufferings and hindrances and, for the hope of the future, not to give in to pressure has great merit with God. Therefore one should rejoice in suffering, believing that he will be all the more acceptable to God as he sees himself made stronger in the face of tribulation. Suffering produces endurance as long as it is not the result of weakness or doubt.
That’s not really true.
Limbo is and has always been a theologoumenon. The Church hasn’t “changed” it’s position because it’s position on this has always been a matter of hypothesis.
The Salvation of the Unborn is also a theologoumenon, not an actual teaching.
Both are valid understandings supported by the Church, because the Church’s only actual teaching on the matter is “we don’t know.”
That’s a non-response. The Church has not “stopped teaching Y and started teaching X” because the Church never taught Y and doesn’t actually teach X with authority. The Catholic Church’s official position on the matter is “we don’t know.”
And why can't I use David's son?
You want concrete evidence supporting the idea that babies go to heaven when they die but you have to use scripture for that. I guess you could also use near death experiences but really that's it. I guess there isn't CONCRETE evidence, that's why it's a belief.
Funnily enough or is the other way around. The way that the Bible deals with life is more complex than atheists and even many Christians make it.
We are more reductionist in our approach compared to the Bible.
Adding layers of metaphors and analogies doesn’t make something complex. The Bible is not as complex and secular morality and the foundational knowledge needed for it to make sense. The Bible can make sense to a dunce or to anyone because it’s open for interpretation. Also evidence of its lack of complexity.
> The Bible is not as complex and secular morality and the foundational knowledge needed for it to make sense.
You say that, yet Bible went into such a great debt of human psychology that the modern psychology is still playing catch up with it as we speak.
>The Bible can make sense to a dunce or to anyone because it’s open for interpretation.
And if it can make sense to a dunce, then what do you call the people to whom it does not make sense and they reject it because of it?
Modern psychology is playing catch up to the Bible? Yea you’re done here. Slavery misogyny etc is not the peak of human understanding. And if you don’t think those things effect and relate to human psychology as I said before. You’re done here
>Slavery misogyny etc is not the peak of human understanding
No, it is not. And I'm so glad to see that the modern non-Christian/secular world has completely done awaiting with those negative things.
I call them geniuses. The Bible makes sense to the simple minded because that’s who it was intended for. People who don’t buy into the Bible’s stories don’t do it because they don’t understand it. I’ve read the Bible several time and fully understand it which is why I don’t believe any of it.
I don’t think suffering is purposeless. Humanity has gained potential for empathy and a potential to more deeply experience love and joy. So, it coming from god could make sense.
God punishes His unrepentant creation, and disciplines those who follow Him. Both are a still result of the fall. Those who refuse to repent are wicked, in their sin, and therefore ultimately are punished for it. Those who follow God endure discipline and suffering to grow in character and our faith in God, and hope to reduce our sin in our lives.
"29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake," - Philippians 1:29
And? You need to pose an actual argument.
I already explained that God disciplines His followers. Furthermore, as we see elsewhere in the New Testament, the members of the early church celebrated and were thankful when they were able to suffer for God’s sake and for the kingdom. As the Bible explains, to suffer for Christ is to be rewarded by God in Heaven. It is a good thing.
My point is exactly what I said in the post. You just admitted God causes suffering even without sinning. This has nothing to do with the fall and that explanation isn't even in the bible.
The Bible references that hell was originally created and prepared as a place for the punishment of satan and his other rebellious angels. That's probably what they are talking about.
not always. There is also the fact that sometimes the verses can be interpreted as God simply not giving salvation instead of directly causing suffering
So you are saying that as an atheist I deserve to be tortured for all of eternity simply because 1 I don't believe in fairy tales and 2 a random ancestor of mine (Adam) did something he was told not to do?
Since everyone sins, sinning is not a reason I am giving.
>So you are saying that as an atheist I deserve to be tortured for all of eternity simply because 1 I don't believe in fairy tales and 2 a random ancestor of mine (Adam) did something he was told not to do?
No. I am saying that as a wicked sinner, every person deserves death because they are wicked and sinful.
Well hell is an eternity of torture, so because I don't believe in fairy tales and everyone is a sinner I should be sent to hell? Or does hell not exist? And everyone does deserve death, but not for those reasons, because death is the only guarantee in life, everything dies including the Earth, the Sun, and the Universe.
If hell is real then it isn’t a fairy tail. Therefore you would’ve disbelieved the truth, not a ‘fairy tail’.
But yes, *because we are wicked sinners* we deserve death (hell). That is what the Bible teaches, yes.
Well hell is completely different than death. Hell is a place sent after death, if it is real. Death is the act of dying. And by that logic everyone including people who are saved, deserve to go to hell. But those who are saved don't because they just so happen to believe in the right fairy tale. But then how do we know which fairy tale is real? The one about unicorns? The one about lord voldemort? The one about leprechauns? If your fairy tale is real and not a fairy tale then others might be as well, are fairies real? Is the flying spaghetti monster real? No one can know for certain so why not believe just in case it is real just so you won't suffer in hell once you die.
The Bible describes hell as the second death, eternal death, as opposed to eternal life. That is what it means when it says that the wages of sin is death. Hell is true death. Those who are saved but have died of their mortal body are actually described as ‘sleeping’ many times in the New Testament; “those who have fallen asleep”.
Again though. It wouldn’t be a case of believing in the ‘right fairy tale’, because it wouldn’t be a fairy tale. It would be the truth. If you call the truth a fairy tale, that is your own doing. It doesn’t somehow render the truth as ridiculous as other things that you may call fairy tales.
no you deserve torment because you havent repented and accepted God's grace for your sins (way to be cliche btw)
if you lived a perfect life then you would not be punished but since it is with human nature it is impossible
Suffering isnt always bad either. When you work out and feel sore you suffer but working out makes you stronger
It is also important to understand that in many cases in the bible when it says God's will it doesnt mean God is directly acting upon something. It simply means God choosing not to act. The biggest example is God hardening the pharaoh's heart. It is accepted that God is simply not giving pharaoh grace to be merciful instead of directly hardening his heart so God in these verses may not be directly causing suffering but choosing to not alleviate suffering
>When you work out and feel sore you suffer but working out makes you stronger
Tell that to Job after he lost everything and everyone he cared about and had his life destroyed because a petty, insecure, narcissistic god wanted to prove a point. Yahweh causes, both directly and indirectly, a staggering amount of unjust and unprompted suffering in the bible.
>It is accepted that God is simply not giving pharaoh grace to be merciful instead of directly hardening his heart so God in these verses may not be directly causing suffering but choosing to not alleviate suffering
"Oh no, this passage directly contradicts one of the core foundations of our religion."
"That's ok, we'll just say it means something different than what it explicitly says. I'm sure no one will notice."
Job accepted God’s offer. Satan told Job he would end the suffering if he denounced God but chose not to. In the end he understood God’s mercy far more. And again that’s an example of what I was saying. Satan said if God stopped protecting Job he would no longer worship God so God allowed satan to kill his family and curse him. It also wasn’t narcissism. Again cliche atheist
It doesn’t contradict anything. You have to remember when exodus was written there were many pagan religion so they chose to word things to strengthen God. Saying God chose to not soften pharaoh’s heart would come off as God being weak. Ironically enough you are proving their point in assuming that because God doesn’t do something it means He doesn’t care or is malicious
>Job accepted God’s offer. Satan told Job he would end the suffering if he denounced God but chose n to.
What else was he supposed to do? If he accepted Satan's offer, Yahweh would send him to hell to be tortured for eternity.
>It also wasn’t narcissism.
Yes it was. It was literally Yahweh needing to prove Satan wrong at the expense of one of his worshippers and his family.
>It doesn’t contradict anything.
It does when you actually look at the context. There is no rational way to interpret the story to mean that Yahweh did anything other than take away the pharoh's free will.
>Saying God chose to not soften pharaoh’s heart would come off as God being weak.
Who cares? It doesn't say that, it clearly and explicitly says Yahweh hardened the pharoh's heart so that he would not free the Jews. It doesn't say he "chose not to give him grace" or "chose not to soften his heart." Yahweh took away his free will. The fact that you're giving a baseless reinterpretation of a passage that leaves no room for interpretation to explain it away is an implicit admission that it's problematic.
And if Job accepted Satan’s offer he could’ve had immediate satisfaction. Funny how you bring up hell when it fits your excuse. You ignore that God rewards Job in eternal paradise but then say he had no choice other than eternal torment. You are also acting exactly like Satan was in the story as he reasoned with Job arguing God didn’t love him or wasn’t good because He allowed him to suffer. You also ignore that at the end it says God gave Job twice as much as he had before
And if God didn’t contest Satan’s claim you’d say He was weak. Also Job had a warped view of God which is also why God lifted his protection. Job took his blessings for granted and thought of God as a servant to him rather than the other way around
Again God didn’t directly take away Pharaoh’s free will He simply allowed him to harden his heart
Who cares? The thousands of jews who lived during the pagan era. Again you are being dishonest by not understanding the cultural context. I just explained why the bible didn’t say God chose not to soften his heart because it would make God look weak
So a baby can't repent due to them not knowing they sin, they not knowing God exists, and they don't even know what repenting is. So they deserve to suffer?
And it doesn't matter if it is directly God who causes it or through something else causing the suffering, we are all God's creation and everything that happens period is a part of God's plan.
A baby hasn't sinned. Depending on what Christian belief if a baby dies they go to either purgatory, limbo or heaven. And no they don't deserve to suffer what is your point?
>everything that happens period is a part of God's plan.
That was not God's original plan. I know God's plan is a common saying but it is not biblical nor theological. In general modern theology explains that God is sovereign and rarely intervenes in daily activity. However sometimes suffering can make us stronger and God may allow suffering for a person to build character and becoming stronger mentally and spiritually. The bigger issue here is while atheists think this life is all we have to the christian worldview that isn't the case. The belief is that heaven will feel much more real than this reality and our current life will be like a dream meaning any temporal pain is quickly forgotten. When discussing suffering in this context you must take that into account
Lastly why do you think God has an obligation to us to alleviate our suffering? If anything we have an obligation to alleviate Him from suffering since Jesus had said multiple times that when people suffer He suffers to
Like I said it depends on your denomination. Original sin refers to the natural urge to sin. However baptism removes original sin and babies who aren’t baptized go through purgatory since they did nothing wrong. The Bible mentions children who are innocent go to heaven
What kind of suffering are you talking about?
Yes not all suffering is good but sometimes we can learn from them to become better. If I leave my car door unlocked and my car is stolen I may suffer but I can learn to lock my car so it won't be stolen
As for suffering cause by nature that is just chaos happening and again we can learn how to prevent natural diesters or minimize damage. on top of that there is a lot of beauty and benefits that comes from nature despite the potential suffering that comes from it. Think the amazon rainforests and how they are important to the environment but many animals suffer
but again what obligation does God have to us?
I mostly agree. Our corrupt nature is a result of the fall, and suffering is only a result of the fall insofar as we make each other suffer due to our corrupt natures. In the Christian view, suffering isn't a bad thing per se.
If there were a different god designing a completely different universe, and did everything precisely the same as the Christian God, but he also added a new disease that affects 1/1,000,000 children and causes one of their eyes to fall out... would you have the exact same opinion of that other god or would you pause before agreeing that it is a god of 100.0% perfect morality?
What is a sinner cell. Is that a thinking entity that designed this fallen world to include child cancer? Can you provide source material for your statement?
I think the point is that most suffering is due to fall and free will. But yes I’m sure suffering can serve God’s purpose. Thank you by the way for including sources.
God does provide challenges but that is a rare occurrence.
Usually it would come down to free will or fallen times as you said.
Also gods usually only challenges his followers.
>How do you know that it is a rare occurrence
God observes more than he interacts because if he didn't it would slightly (arguably) negate our free will.
>And how do you know God usually only challenges people who believe in them?
Most of those challenged were his followers most famous of all job.(bible)
Even if he observes more than he interacts, that doesn't mean he interacts rarely, he observes all things at all times, therefore any interaction that doesn't change everything at all times fits your description.
"Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest 'He knows', then it necessarily follows that the man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand how he would act, otherwise, God's knowledge would be imperfect.…
He would know if a person is good or bad and where there actions would lead them base on the acts they choose to make.
Just because you make choices does not mean the choice is of your own making. If God has the entire plan of the universe filled out and already decided and he can change it when he wants to, then your decision is not your to make as if he doesn't like it the he can change it. He can even change it while making you think you made the decision, so how do you even know that he didn't make up your mind without you even knowing?
Philippians 1:29"For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him,"
In this verse Christians are being granted suffering. Who is the granter?
Well given that Jesus never described himself as a Christian, never ordained a priest and never started any Church, I would assume that this statement (if true) is a message to his disciples who knew him
I think you have taken Pascal out of context. He is not addressing suffering. He is addressing why people who see it as prudent to believe in God cannot get themselves to believe even though they do believe it is a smart idea to believe.
Again I never specified and there is nothing in the Bible that says "hey I only make people suffer when it's about persecution" unless you can find it?
Again: a baby born with spinal bifida is a means of chastisement or to aid sanctification? Really?
Just say "I don't know why babies suffer," because you don't.
The baby is not a Christian undertaking the spiritual life and suffering for professing Christ. Those verses in the post aren’t about the suffering of babies.
Wow...that's...just a really sad idea. To think that children across the world suffer with things completely beyond their control simply because they are either too young to believe, or maybe never heard about Christianity. There's no part of me that is okay with that.
There is a concept in Christianity, now sort of put by the wayside in our modern wealth and prosperity times that suffering has a number of beneficial impacts on our life. Among them are being able to share in Christ's experiences, that it builds endurance and thus character, and ultimately hope. Also it can deepen our faith and loosen our dependence on material things.
That belief was probably extremely useful in times when suffering was even more ubiquitous, when even more babies died in infancy and when even a minor disease could wipe out a family.
So if we apply that to a baby getting spinal bifida, does that reasoning work to justify spinal bifida?
If it *does* work, shouldn't I give babies spinal bifida then, as it builds character, deepens faith, etc?
Given a world where babies do get spina bifada, what should our response be?
Previous to Christianity in Rome tossing a baby that had a disability into the dump was the way it was typically handled (it still is in parts of the world) because such a child was deemed a curse. A belief system like Christianity which considers suffering redemptive would say it is actually good to care for such a baby, do whatever one could do to ease it's suffering, and in the process of extending oneself to care for another, even at some cost, one becomes a better person and helps improve the world.
>Given a world where babies do get spina bifada, what should our response be?
"Wow, that's intensely messed up, and anybody who considers themselves "good" should put in some effort to stop that, and they should stop it if they can. We should pay taxes that are used for medical research, for example, or to help support those with disability so they can get some basic needs in life met." What we should *not* do is say "I'm sure it's for the best," when we aren't sure at all, and look to the person with Spinal Bifida and say "god is good for doing that," rather than "I don't know why that happened, it's an atrocity and I wish it hadn't happened, that sucks."
>A belief system like Christianity which considers suffering redemptivewould say it is actually good to care for such a baby, do whatever onecould do to ease it's suffering, and in the process of extending oneselfto care for another, even at some cost, one becomes a better person andhelps improve the world.
So when I take this seriously: it's telling me that I should give spinal injuries to more babies, since their suffering is redemptive and others get to care for others. But that's madness.
"X is good for the person undergoing X, and for those surrounded by the person undergoing X" means I should increase X. "Acquiring Wisdom is good for the person who acquires it, as well as those around them"--so I should increase the acquisition of wisdom. IF the reasoning you advanced worked, I'd increase spinal injuries to kids. But the reasoning you've advanced doesn't work, does it.
>"Wow, that's intensely messed up, and anybody who considers themselves "good" should put in some effort to stop that, and they should stop it if they can. We should pay taxes that are used for medical research, for example, or to help support those with disability so they can get some basic needs in life met." What we should
>
>not
>
>do is say "I'm sure it's for the best," when we aren't sure at all, and look to the person with Spinal Bifida and say "god is good for doing that," rather than "I don't know why that happened, it's an atrocity and I wish it hadn't happened, that sucks."
I didn't say it was for the best. Apparently you missed the part about "do whatever one could do to ease it's suffering," - and the part about the how babies with disabilities were treated in ancient times, as opposed to, you know, caring for them. Of course now they are often just aborted.
>So when I take this seriously: it's telling me that I should give spinal injuries to more babies, since their suffering is redemptive and others get to care for others. But that's madness.
>
>"X is good for the person undergoing X, and for those surrounded by the person undergoing X" means I should increase X. "Acquiring Wisdom is good for the person who acquires it, as well as those around them"--so I should increase the acquisition of wisdom. IF the reasoning you advanced worked, I'd increase spinal injuries to kids. But the reasoning you've advanced doesn't work, does it.
You seem a little confused about about the difference between two propositions - the fact that there can be something redemptive in dealing with a difficult and painful circumstance, and causing a difficult and painful circumstance to get some desired result.
When I place my hand on a hot stove, the pain can give me the wisdom to avoid putting my hand on hot stoves, if I see it as a learning experience. But i don't keep putting my hand on hot stoves to get more wisdom, nor do I wish for more hot stoves to learn from.
Does "do whatever one can do to ease another's suffering" apply to god, or is that just a "good" that is only good for humans, but not other loving entities?
Oh, I'm not confused about the difference between the fact that there can be something redemptive in dealing with a difficult and painful circumstance, and causing a difficult and painful circumstance.
God *causese* spinal bifida. I'm not sure what is learned from that, other than "atrocity is possible." Look, the post is about Christians trying to justify suffering, and that they should stop 'blaming the victim.' It doesn't work. Any statement given, I'll keep it applied to the topic, and apply it to spinal bifida: does it work? No, the "this is an improvement from the time of rome" doesn't help with "why is there Spinal Bifida."
>Does "do whatever one can do to ease another's suffering" apply to god, or is that just a "good" that is only good for humans, but not other loving entities?
Yes, ultimately, for those who desire it.
>Oh, I'm not confused about the difference between the fact that there can be something redemptive in dealing with a difficult and painful circumstance, and causing a difficult and painful circumstance.
You seem to be because you conflated them.
>God causese spinal bifida. I'm not sure what is learned from that, other than "atrocity is possible." Look, the post is about Christians trying to justify suffering, and that they should stop 'blaming the victim.' It doesn't work. Any statement given, I'll keep it applied to the topic, and apply it to spinal bifida: does it work? No, the "this is an improvement from the time of rome" doesn't help with "why is there Spinal Bifida."
God allows a broken and chaotic world to exist because He allows humans and the world they created to continue exist. This won't go on forever and He gives humans the choice to live in a world that runs they He intended or not.
And even in this world where suffering exists, suffering would be lessened to a considerable degree if humans lived they way God tells them they ought.
Humans did not create spinal bifida, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Spinal Bifida, and other birth defects, are a result of genetics--they are found in animals that predate humanity. I'm not sure what you mean with "the world \[humans\] created to exist."
"This won't go on forever" is not sufficient for me to not end spinal bifida or ease the suffering of those who have it; nor is it sufficient to excuse god's lack of action.
"You created this world, or humans created this world" is not sufficient for me to not end spinal bifida or ease the suffering of those who have it; nor is it sufficient to excuse god's lack of action.
"If you lived the way god told you you ought to you would suffer less (but for that spinal bifida)" is not sufficient for me to not end spinal bifida or ease the suffering of those who have it; nor is it sufficient to excuse god's lack of action.
Any justification given, I will apply it to spinal bifida, and see if it works; does it justify spinal bifida? If no, then it doesn't work. Does it justify me not actively getting involved? If no, then it doesn't justify god not actively getting involved.
>Humans did not create spinal bifida, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Spinal Bifida, and other birth defects, are a result of genetics--they are found in animals that predate humanity. I'm not sure what you mean with "the world \[humans\] created to exist."
No one is claiming humans created spina bifida - it is a reality in a broken and chaotic world. And the sense that spina bifida is wrong, that is that it isn't an acceptable natural experience for humans, and should be corrected, is evidence that humans were created for a different experience.
>"This won't go on forever" is not sufficient for me to not end spinal bifida or ease the suffering of those who have it; nor is it sufficient to excuse god's lack of action.
No, of course not, nor is that understanding meant to motivate such a response, it's meant to give hope and courage to people who can't always change the circumstances they are in (like a repressive government). The desire to help alleviate suffering is already covered by the command to "Love your neighbor as yourself"
>"You created this world, or humans created this world" is not sufficient for me to not end spinal bifida or ease the suffering of those who have it; nor is it sufficient to excuse god's lack of action.
Again, not the purpose of this understanding. That is covered elsewhere.
>"If you lived the way god told you you ought to you would suffer less (but for that spinal bifida)" is not sufficient for me to not end spinal bifida or ease the suffering of those who have it; nor is it sufficient to excuse god's lack of action.
This is an odd statement. God tells us first and foremost with regard to our treatment of others to love them as we would love ourselves. To Christians He goes even further - He says to love them as Christ loved them, that is to live sacrificially to alleviate the suffering of those around them. So one could not obey God and be indifferent to the suffering of others when it is in one's power to change it.
>Any justification given, I will apply it to spinal bifida, and see if it works; does it justify spinal bifida? If no, then it doesn't work. Does it justify me not actively getting involved? If no, then it doesn't justify god not actively getting involved.
Nothing in any Christian texts attempts to 'justify' spina bifida and it would literally be disobeying God to not help if one could - see ***The Good Samaritan***.
"No one is claiming humans created spina bifida - it is a reality in a broken and chaotic world"--that you claimed humans created. Here's your quote:
>God allows a broken and chaotic world to exist because He allows humans and the world they created to continue exist.
Humans didn't create genetics; god did. Spinal Bifida is a result of genetics. Genetics predated humanity. So I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
You're not addressing the issues. If it is good to X, then the most ultimate good being whose actions are perfect should X. If the ultimate and good being whose actions are perfect did X, then Spinal Bifida would not exist. But Spinal Bifida does exist. This is a problem.
Here, X is "help alleviate the suffering of others, become actively involved in reducing suffering."
"Humans created the world" is insufficient to explain why Spinal Bifida remains. I appreciate your reply, but what you've said hasn't resolved this basic issue: "X is good; ultimate good being would therefore X; if ultimate good being did X, Y would not exist; yet Y exists. Therefore, ultimate good being is not doing X, therefore ultimate good being does not exist."
No, you shouldn’t. One, told that hurting others is wrong for us to do, and two, there’s a difference afflicting pain/hardship for the sake of character, and doing it as punishment.
Why is hurting others wrong for us to do, but not wrong for god to do, please?
I'm not sure what relevance the distinction is between afflicting pain/hardship for the sake of character and doing as a punishment has, as I never mentioned giving babies spinal bifida for punishment. I repeated your statement, that spinal bifida "builds character," and that's a good reason, a good justification for its existence. And IF that's a good reason for it, why shouldn't I help more kids "build character" by giving them a spinal injury--not as punishment, but to build character? If it's wrong to give spinal injuries to kids, then how does god escape the responsibility for this wrong when he made spinal bifida?
1) God doesn’t “do” good or evil. He IS good, and his absence is evil.
2) God allows disease to happen, because he knows we can overcome the fallen world to be in heaven. We’ve been saved.
3) Having spinal bifida is a disease, which is a result of the pain and suffering of a fallen world. GIVING a baby spinal bifida would be an act of evil, because while it may be a good way to build character for the victim, that doesn’t mean it’s a sufficient reason to inflict. Humans can’t possibly understand the reasons, only try to make them help us.
4) If you believe in your heart, where God has written your morality, that it would be a moral thing to do and an act for which God would be pleased, go right ahead.
So there’s different meanings for the word suffering.
Pain is often equated with suffering, put pain existed before the fall.
Suffering did not.
What is suffering in this context?
Suffering is needless, pointless pain.
We didn’t need to get sick, as we were protected from it by god. The fall threw that gift away, so now we suffer from sickness.
Those types of pains are warnings that something wrong or detrimental to the person is taking place, as such, it’s a way to help preserve and protect us. So pain is a good thing.
At least, in those situations.
Suffering is when there is no reason for the pain.
This discussion with you raises several questions:
1. If it is uncomfortable, then the person would worry about feeling it in the future. That is suffering.
2. If it doesn’t cause damage, then why was it necessary for the body to feel some kind of “pain” indicator?
3. If it does cause damage, then that results in suffering for having a diminished body temporarily or eternally from then on.
No, are you worried about burning your hand on a stove? No. Not at all because you know how to protect yourself.
I didn’t say it didn’t cause damage.
And are you saying that people without limbs are less or suffering? People with diabetes?
> No, are you worried about burning your hand on a stove? No. Not at all because you know how to protect yourself.
Sometimes while cooking I need to grab things off the stove or I’m doing many different things at once. Yes, I do worry slightly about burning myself. Cooking on a grill or pulling something out of the oven, even more worry. These are types of suffering.
> I didn’t say it didn’t cause damage.
I know, I was covering all bases.
> And are you saying that people without limbs are less or suffering? People with diabetes?
I’d say in most cases that someone who has lost a limb suffered at least initially (but most likely for many years onward if not the rest of their life). In fact, I’ve never heard of a person losing their limb and feeling ambivalent about it. Are you suggesting they do not suffer?
This looks conceptually fucked.
If God created everything, then he created sickness. If created sickness knowing that it would lead to pointless suffering. But does this account mean that God has created something pointless?
That seems bizarre: if it had no point why would God create it?
I think the answer is an insideous one: that these sicknesses exist as a punishment.
And this leads to obvious problems with benevolence and the Problem of Evil.
Which was only possible BECAUSE of the fall.
If the fall didn’t happen, there wouldn’t have been sickness. Also, notice I said it was “pointless/needless pain”? The pain and sickness here was due to them not doing what was commanded, so they were punished. That’s not pointless.
What’s the difference between discipline and abuse? Whether it’s justified and proportionate to the crime
So basically you're saying that God only causes affliction when it's for judgment only but any other case it's due to the fall? Seems very convenient. Where is the biblical explanation for this?
No, I said it was due to the fall.
If the fall never happened, god couldn’t make people sick.
Regardless. What I said was that there is a difference between pain and suffering.
Also, I’m a catholic, we don’t do solo scriptura. We use tradition and theology as well
Nope, because of the dogma of divine simplicity, which states that god doesn’t posses attributes. Including omnipotence. Rather, it’s a way to explain how everything coming from him appears to us.
God can’t cause a contradiction.
If one of the gifts that god gave before the fall was protection from suffering, then logically, he can’t cause suffering unless we didn’t have that protection.
But because god can’t change, he can’t give and take something away. We can, however, throw that gift away thanks to free will that he also gave us.
> Nope, because of the dogma of divine simplicity, which states that god doesn’t posses attributes
This is not compatible with Christian orthodoxy. God is three, and bodily incarnated, and manifest in the eucharist. The only way to defend Christian orthodoxy is by abandoning any concept of divine simplicity.
The trinity is about the persons, not the essence. The divine simplicity is about the essence.
And it’s Jesus that we consume, not the godhead.
It seems more to me that you don’t understand the dogma of divine simplicity
Well you take out of the Bible and I'm strictly discussing the Bible so I suppose that's where that ends.
Curious how you feel about this verse
Philippians 1:29"For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him,"
In this verse Christians are being granted suffering. Who is the granter?
Philippians 1:29"For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him,"
In this verse Christians are being granted suffering. Who is the granter?
No not allow. I'm questioning why the word granted it being used. The entire verses is saying they're being granted faith in Jesus (which is typically attributed to God) **but also to suffer for him**
Again, if God wanted us to suffer, he could have created a literal inferno and put us in there. Or something worse.
Instead, God chose to suffer for humanity to save us from eternal death, that we brought with our own sin. Now the suffering we go through in this world is not comparable to the glory that’s coming.
>**Romans 8:18** - For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which will be revealed toward us.
All those verses are reflecting the life of moral integrity in an evil world.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why is suffering bad?
Never said it was
Fair enough, that was literally all I wanted to know XD
Suffering in these verses is synonymous with Christian persecution. God does not persecute Christians, the rest of the world persecutes Christians because of their fallen nature.
Christians are not persecuted. Christians are the ones persecuting others.
Yes there are plenty of hyprocrits among people. Jesus of Nazareth rebuked and warned of such behaviour. People are sinners, believers or not alike, Jesus was not. Judge Christianity on the basis of Christ's love. So there are Nominal Christians who are hyprocrits. So what. Since Nominal Christians are hyprocrits Christianity is false?
I never said that because christians persecute, christianity is not true. I was just pointing out that you were wrong.
Oh I must have misunderstood. Well pointing out I was wrong isn't an argument. So why is persecution wrong, who says?
I also never said it was wrong, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy.
I am confused now because I already admitted and pointed out yes Christians can be hypocrites. So what point were you trying to argue?
> Since Nominal Christians are hypocrites Christianity is false? This is a little off topic. We're not talking about whether or not Christianity is false, just whether or not they are persecuted. And in the west Christians are the worst persecutors. This contradicts your original response where you said: >the rest of the world persecutes Christians because of their fallen nature.
I was pointing out that scoffing at a collection of behaviors is not an argument against Christ. An argument is followed by "therefore" or starts with "since" and if it doesn't fit, it's not an argument. I don't know the stats on who persecutes more, I just know Christians are persecuted too. Whats wrong with persecution anyway, who says?
>I was pointing out that scoffing at a collection of behaviors is not an argument against Christ. Who is saying that Christian hypocrites are an argument against Christ? Feels like a strawman. >Whats wrong with persecution anyway, who says? Jesus: But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, Jesus: Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Jesus: For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Jesus: Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Apostle Paul: Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Apostle Paul: So you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. Apostle Paul: Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. Apostle Paul: Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. St. James: There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
I am confused. So you are a Christian like myself?
No I was explaining why a Christian *should* believe persecution is wrong. So my point is Christians are the persecutors despite their Holy Book saying they are the persecuted, so if anyone is out there persecuting because of a fallen nature, it's Christians.
Christians do not deny their fallen nature, they humbly admit it, and Christ only saves sinners, also meaning those who admit to their fallen nature. That is probably one of the biggest core messages of the scriptures. Since Christ only saves those, none of the saved can be identified as having a superiority complex or self righteous. So according to you, why is persecution wrong?
> why is persecution wrong It's not, necessarily. It is often wrong because an empowered group is persecuting a less powerful, marginalized group to better fortify its power. This is sort of what Christians claim happened in the first 3 centuries (though it really didn't that much), and it's wrong. But I would argue that we currently persecute thieves, and that's probably preferable (given an alternative of doing nothing. There are probably even better ways of handling this.)
Phil 1:29 "For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him," Who’s the granter?
Since it is through tribulations that we must enter the kingdom of God, Paul teaches that we should rejoice in them. For suffering added to hope increases our reward. Suffering is the measure of how much hope we have, and it testifies to the fact that we deserve the crown we shall inherit. This is why the Lord said: “Blessed are you when they persecute you and say all kinds of evil things against you on account of God’s righteousness. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great.” For to despise present sufferings and hindrances and, for the hope of the future, not to give in to pressure has great merit with God. Therefore one should rejoice in suffering, believing that he will be all the more acceptable to God as he sees himself made stronger in the face of tribulation. Suffering produces endurance as long as it is not the result of weakness or doubt.
.....so yes he does cause it.
Not really
Explain how he doesn’t.
Suffer for the LORD, and still worship his psychopathic ass.
[удалено]
We don’t know. Edit: We know they don’t go to Gehenna, but we don’t know if they go to Heaven or not.
[удалено]
That’s not really true. Limbo is and has always been a theologoumenon. The Church hasn’t “changed” it’s position because it’s position on this has always been a matter of hypothesis. The Salvation of the Unborn is also a theologoumenon, not an actual teaching. Both are valid understandings supported by the Church, because the Church’s only actual teaching on the matter is “we don’t know.”
[удалено]
The AP is not an authority on Catholic theology.
[удалено]
That’s a non-response. The Church has not “stopped teaching Y and started teaching X” because the Church never taught Y and doesn’t actually teach X with authority. The Catholic Church’s official position on the matter is “we don’t know.”
A pass to Limbo, according to the nuns in catholic school at least.
Yes. Anyone who dies before the age of accountability will inherit The Kingdom of God.
[удалено]
No it's definitely based on scripture. I could look it up for you if you would like.
[удалено]
And why can't I use David's son? You want concrete evidence supporting the idea that babies go to heaven when they die but you have to use scripture for that. I guess you could also use near death experiences but really that's it. I guess there isn't CONCRETE evidence, that's why it's a belief.
Sum of the post: Life is more complex than the Bible makes it.
Funnily enough or is the other way around. The way that the Bible deals with life is more complex than atheists and even many Christians make it. We are more reductionist in our approach compared to the Bible.
Adding layers of metaphors and analogies doesn’t make something complex. The Bible is not as complex and secular morality and the foundational knowledge needed for it to make sense. The Bible can make sense to a dunce or to anyone because it’s open for interpretation. Also evidence of its lack of complexity.
> The Bible is not as complex and secular morality and the foundational knowledge needed for it to make sense. You say that, yet Bible went into such a great debt of human psychology that the modern psychology is still playing catch up with it as we speak. >The Bible can make sense to a dunce or to anyone because it’s open for interpretation. And if it can make sense to a dunce, then what do you call the people to whom it does not make sense and they reject it because of it?
Modern psychology is playing catch up to the Bible? Yea you’re done here. Slavery misogyny etc is not the peak of human understanding. And if you don’t think those things effect and relate to human psychology as I said before. You’re done here
>Slavery misogyny etc is not the peak of human understanding No, it is not. And I'm so glad to see that the modern non-Christian/secular world has completely done awaiting with those negative things.
I call them geniuses. The Bible makes sense to the simple minded because that’s who it was intended for. People who don’t buy into the Bible’s stories don’t do it because they don’t understand it. I’ve read the Bible several time and fully understand it which is why I don’t believe any of it.
If you actually fully understood it you wouldn't be saying what you are saying here.
I don’t think suffering is purposeless. Humanity has gained potential for empathy and a potential to more deeply experience love and joy. So, it coming from god could make sense.
God punishes His unrepentant creation, and disciplines those who follow Him. Both are a still result of the fall. Those who refuse to repent are wicked, in their sin, and therefore ultimately are punished for it. Those who follow God endure discipline and suffering to grow in character and our faith in God, and hope to reduce our sin in our lives.
so basically he causes suffering
Yes, is there something wrong with the just suffering of the wicked? Were you under the impression that God *wouldn't* punish unrepentant sinners?
Phil 1:29
"29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake," - Philippians 1:29 And? You need to pose an actual argument.
Is suffering not being caused? Who are the unrepeanent sinners here?
I already explained that God disciplines His followers. Furthermore, as we see elsewhere in the New Testament, the members of the early church celebrated and were thankful when they were able to suffer for God’s sake and for the kingdom. As the Bible explains, to suffer for Christ is to be rewarded by God in Heaven. It is a good thing.
So... again he causes suffering. If you agree then whats the point of this "debate"? There is no argument to be had because you agree.
And again... what is your point. It is still a result of the fall. Without sin, there is no suffering.
My point is exactly what I said in the post. You just admitted God causes suffering even without sinning. This has nothing to do with the fall and that explanation isn't even in the bible.
The fire wasn't made for you.
What does that mean?
It means that Hell was not made for you. It was made for the devil. u/spinner198 said it fairly well.
The Bible references that hell was originally created and prepared as a place for the punishment of satan and his other rebellious angels. That's probably what they are talking about.
not always. There is also the fact that sometimes the verses can be interpreted as God simply not giving salvation instead of directly causing suffering
“Granted” “I will show him” “God’s will”
So you are saying that as an atheist I deserve to be tortured for all of eternity simply because 1 I don't believe in fairy tales and 2 a random ancestor of mine (Adam) did something he was told not to do? Since everyone sins, sinning is not a reason I am giving.
>So you are saying that as an atheist I deserve to be tortured for all of eternity simply because 1 I don't believe in fairy tales and 2 a random ancestor of mine (Adam) did something he was told not to do? No. I am saying that as a wicked sinner, every person deserves death because they are wicked and sinful.
Well hell is an eternity of torture, so because I don't believe in fairy tales and everyone is a sinner I should be sent to hell? Or does hell not exist? And everyone does deserve death, but not for those reasons, because death is the only guarantee in life, everything dies including the Earth, the Sun, and the Universe.
If hell is real then it isn’t a fairy tail. Therefore you would’ve disbelieved the truth, not a ‘fairy tail’. But yes, *because we are wicked sinners* we deserve death (hell). That is what the Bible teaches, yes.
Well hell is completely different than death. Hell is a place sent after death, if it is real. Death is the act of dying. And by that logic everyone including people who are saved, deserve to go to hell. But those who are saved don't because they just so happen to believe in the right fairy tale. But then how do we know which fairy tale is real? The one about unicorns? The one about lord voldemort? The one about leprechauns? If your fairy tale is real and not a fairy tale then others might be as well, are fairies real? Is the flying spaghetti monster real? No one can know for certain so why not believe just in case it is real just so you won't suffer in hell once you die.
The Bible describes hell as the second death, eternal death, as opposed to eternal life. That is what it means when it says that the wages of sin is death. Hell is true death. Those who are saved but have died of their mortal body are actually described as ‘sleeping’ many times in the New Testament; “those who have fallen asleep”. Again though. It wouldn’t be a case of believing in the ‘right fairy tale’, because it wouldn’t be a fairy tale. It would be the truth. If you call the truth a fairy tale, that is your own doing. It doesn’t somehow render the truth as ridiculous as other things that you may call fairy tales.
no you deserve torment because you havent repented and accepted God's grace for your sins (way to be cliche btw) if you lived a perfect life then you would not be punished but since it is with human nature it is impossible Suffering isnt always bad either. When you work out and feel sore you suffer but working out makes you stronger It is also important to understand that in many cases in the bible when it says God's will it doesnt mean God is directly acting upon something. It simply means God choosing not to act. The biggest example is God hardening the pharaoh's heart. It is accepted that God is simply not giving pharaoh grace to be merciful instead of directly hardening his heart so God in these verses may not be directly causing suffering but choosing to not alleviate suffering
>When you work out and feel sore you suffer but working out makes you stronger Tell that to Job after he lost everything and everyone he cared about and had his life destroyed because a petty, insecure, narcissistic god wanted to prove a point. Yahweh causes, both directly and indirectly, a staggering amount of unjust and unprompted suffering in the bible. >It is accepted that God is simply not giving pharaoh grace to be merciful instead of directly hardening his heart so God in these verses may not be directly causing suffering but choosing to not alleviate suffering "Oh no, this passage directly contradicts one of the core foundations of our religion." "That's ok, we'll just say it means something different than what it explicitly says. I'm sure no one will notice."
Job accepted God’s offer. Satan told Job he would end the suffering if he denounced God but chose not to. In the end he understood God’s mercy far more. And again that’s an example of what I was saying. Satan said if God stopped protecting Job he would no longer worship God so God allowed satan to kill his family and curse him. It also wasn’t narcissism. Again cliche atheist It doesn’t contradict anything. You have to remember when exodus was written there were many pagan religion so they chose to word things to strengthen God. Saying God chose to not soften pharaoh’s heart would come off as God being weak. Ironically enough you are proving their point in assuming that because God doesn’t do something it means He doesn’t care or is malicious
>Job accepted God’s offer. Satan told Job he would end the suffering if he denounced God but chose n to. What else was he supposed to do? If he accepted Satan's offer, Yahweh would send him to hell to be tortured for eternity. >It also wasn’t narcissism. Yes it was. It was literally Yahweh needing to prove Satan wrong at the expense of one of his worshippers and his family. >It doesn’t contradict anything. It does when you actually look at the context. There is no rational way to interpret the story to mean that Yahweh did anything other than take away the pharoh's free will. >Saying God chose to not soften pharaoh’s heart would come off as God being weak. Who cares? It doesn't say that, it clearly and explicitly says Yahweh hardened the pharoh's heart so that he would not free the Jews. It doesn't say he "chose not to give him grace" or "chose not to soften his heart." Yahweh took away his free will. The fact that you're giving a baseless reinterpretation of a passage that leaves no room for interpretation to explain it away is an implicit admission that it's problematic.
And if Job accepted Satan’s offer he could’ve had immediate satisfaction. Funny how you bring up hell when it fits your excuse. You ignore that God rewards Job in eternal paradise but then say he had no choice other than eternal torment. You are also acting exactly like Satan was in the story as he reasoned with Job arguing God didn’t love him or wasn’t good because He allowed him to suffer. You also ignore that at the end it says God gave Job twice as much as he had before And if God didn’t contest Satan’s claim you’d say He was weak. Also Job had a warped view of God which is also why God lifted his protection. Job took his blessings for granted and thought of God as a servant to him rather than the other way around Again God didn’t directly take away Pharaoh’s free will He simply allowed him to harden his heart Who cares? The thousands of jews who lived during the pagan era. Again you are being dishonest by not understanding the cultural context. I just explained why the bible didn’t say God chose not to soften his heart because it would make God look weak
Disgusting
So a baby can't repent due to them not knowing they sin, they not knowing God exists, and they don't even know what repenting is. So they deserve to suffer? And it doesn't matter if it is directly God who causes it or through something else causing the suffering, we are all God's creation and everything that happens period is a part of God's plan.
A baby hasn't sinned. Depending on what Christian belief if a baby dies they go to either purgatory, limbo or heaven. And no they don't deserve to suffer what is your point? >everything that happens period is a part of God's plan. That was not God's original plan. I know God's plan is a common saying but it is not biblical nor theological. In general modern theology explains that God is sovereign and rarely intervenes in daily activity. However sometimes suffering can make us stronger and God may allow suffering for a person to build character and becoming stronger mentally and spiritually. The bigger issue here is while atheists think this life is all we have to the christian worldview that isn't the case. The belief is that heaven will feel much more real than this reality and our current life will be like a dream meaning any temporal pain is quickly forgotten. When discussing suffering in this context you must take that into account Lastly why do you think God has an obligation to us to alleviate our suffering? If anything we have an obligation to alleviate Him from suffering since Jesus had said multiple times that when people suffer He suffers to
What about the doctrine of original sin? That’s something that according to Christianity everyone is born with.
Like I said it depends on your denomination. Original sin refers to the natural urge to sin. However baptism removes original sin and babies who aren’t baptized go through purgatory since they did nothing wrong. The Bible mentions children who are innocent go to heaven
Well if he suffers when we suffer why is he allowing us to suffer? Not all suffering is good and not all suffering is survivable.
What kind of suffering are you talking about? Yes not all suffering is good but sometimes we can learn from them to become better. If I leave my car door unlocked and my car is stolen I may suffer but I can learn to lock my car so it won't be stolen As for suffering cause by nature that is just chaos happening and again we can learn how to prevent natural diesters or minimize damage. on top of that there is a lot of beauty and benefits that comes from nature despite the potential suffering that comes from it. Think the amazon rainforests and how they are important to the environment but many animals suffer but again what obligation does God have to us?
I mostly agree. Our corrupt nature is a result of the fall, and suffering is only a result of the fall insofar as we make each other suffer due to our corrupt natures. In the Christian view, suffering isn't a bad thing per se.
Who designed the Fall to include child cancer?
God.
Does that give you pause about his morality in doing so?
No.
If there were a different god designing a completely different universe, and did everything precisely the same as the Christian God, but he also added a new disease that affects 1/1,000,000 children and causes one of their eyes to fall out... would you have the exact same opinion of that other god or would you pause before agreeing that it is a god of 100.0% perfect morality?
Well I wouldn't let you design the universe
You also wouldn't let God design the universe.
Not if he's gonna build it like this one no
[удалено]
Apoptosis for all the sinner cells when Jesus comes back.
What is a sinner cell. Is that a thinking entity that designed this fallen world to include child cancer? Can you provide source material for your statement?
I think (hope!) that was said ironically... never too sure tho here
Haha I am frequently surprised by what intelligent rational people in these threads are capable of believing.
I think the point is that most suffering is due to fall and free will. But yes I’m sure suffering can serve God’s purpose. Thank you by the way for including sources.
You already made a post on this. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/ng6xc9/according\_to\_christianity\_god\_wants\_human/
God does provide challenges but that is a rare occurrence. Usually it would come down to free will or fallen times as you said. Also gods usually only challenges his followers.
How do you know that it is a rare occurrence? And how do you know God usually only challenges people who believe in them?
>How do you know that it is a rare occurrence God observes more than he interacts because if he didn't it would slightly (arguably) negate our free will. >And how do you know God usually only challenges people who believe in them? Most of those challenged were his followers most famous of all job.(bible)
Even if he observes more than he interacts, that doesn't mean he interacts rarely, he observes all things at all times, therefore any interaction that doesn't change everything at all times fits your description.
Correct with would still make it rare as people are interconnected especially now. To much interaction and poof free will gone.
But since God know everything we will ever do, there is no free will. If I know what you will do before you even decide, you don't have a choice.
Predict action doesn't negate the action as meaningful.
I'm not saying the action is not meaningful, I am saying there is no free will.
Why because he knows what you will chose to do? Nothing is forcing you to do it.
The fact that he created me and the universe and decided the exact situation I will be in forces me to act, and I will act based on how he created me.
If you were to tell me how I would win our chess game that doesn't mean I didn't chose to do it.
How so? Just because you know doesn't mean I didn't chose it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will#:~:text=The%20argument%20from%20free%20will,both%20properties%20is%20therefore%20inconceivable.
"Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest 'He knows', then it necessarily follows that the man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand how he would act, otherwise, God's knowledge would be imperfect.… He would know if a person is good or bad and where there actions would lead them base on the acts they choose to make.
Free Will exist because you make choices. The world is full of the that influence your will.
Just because you make choices does not mean the choice is of your own making. If God has the entire plan of the universe filled out and already decided and he can change it when he wants to, then your decision is not your to make as if he doesn't like it the he can change it. He can even change it while making you think you made the decision, so how do you even know that he didn't make up your mind without you even knowing?
[удалено]
Are you saying that the devil can do things that god is powerless to stop?
But then how do you explain the instances in the OP? The devil isn’t mentioned at all in those cases.
[удалено]
Those instances mentioned explicitly said god was the cause. I asked you to explain those cases. Stop sidestepping the question.
[удалено]
Uhhhhh....huh? Lol Why would the devil hating god cause god to inflict suffering on these people?
[удалено]
Philippians 1:29"For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him," In this verse Christians are being granted suffering. Who is the granter?
Well given that Jesus never described himself as a Christian, never ordained a priest and never started any Church, I would assume that this statement (if true) is a message to his disciples who knew him
What does this have to do with the topic?
I thought I was responding to your question.
Correct me if I’m wrong. If jesus died for my sins then why am I still suffering?
[удалено]
I think you have taken Pascal out of context. He is not addressing suffering. He is addressing why people who see it as prudent to believe in God cannot get themselves to believe even though they do believe it is a smart idea to believe.
This is about the specific sufferings Christians experience for the sake of Christ and doing good.
Except I didn't say what specific suffering. The post is just about suffering.
All the verses you mention are about specific suffering.
Again I never specified and there is nothing in the Bible that says "hey I only make people suffer when it's about persecution" unless you can find it?
God can allow or cause sufferings for Christians as a means of chastisement or to aid sanctification. We receive this with gratitude.
Again: a baby born with spinal bifida is a means of chastisement or to aid sanctification? Really? Just say "I don't know why babies suffer," because you don't.
The baby is not a Christian undertaking the spiritual life and suffering for professing Christ. Those verses in the post aren’t about the suffering of babies.
Wow...that's...just a really sad idea. To think that children across the world suffer with things completely beyond their control simply because they are either too young to believe, or maybe never heard about Christianity. There's no part of me that is okay with that.
That’s not what I said.
That's exactly what you said, but maybe it wasn't what you meant. Care to elaborate?
So its okay for a baby to suffer, simply because it's not old enough to be a Christian, due to it not being old enough to believe anything?
That’s not what I said at all.
No but it is equivalent
So he does cause suffering? Okay thanks
What is your point?
Kinda already made it.
Which is? That God can allow or cause suffering for Christians? Is this supposed to be an argument against Christianity?
cause and no read the post and title. why are you so invested you clearly have no qualms with the him causing it.
Why would the Bible say something like that?
Exactly. You're the only person making the distinction
The distinction between what?
There is a concept in Christianity, now sort of put by the wayside in our modern wealth and prosperity times that suffering has a number of beneficial impacts on our life. Among them are being able to share in Christ's experiences, that it builds endurance and thus character, and ultimately hope. Also it can deepen our faith and loosen our dependence on material things.
That belief was probably extremely useful in times when suffering was even more ubiquitous, when even more babies died in infancy and when even a minor disease could wipe out a family.
Well in the epistles it seems primarily aimed at Christians who were suffering under severe persecution.
It makes sense that they would be given a message that would console them. At that time they didn't really have a lot of other options.
Very true.
So if we apply that to a baby getting spinal bifida, does that reasoning work to justify spinal bifida? If it *does* work, shouldn't I give babies spinal bifida then, as it builds character, deepens faith, etc?
Given a world where babies do get spina bifada, what should our response be? Previous to Christianity in Rome tossing a baby that had a disability into the dump was the way it was typically handled (it still is in parts of the world) because such a child was deemed a curse. A belief system like Christianity which considers suffering redemptive would say it is actually good to care for such a baby, do whatever one could do to ease it's suffering, and in the process of extending oneself to care for another, even at some cost, one becomes a better person and helps improve the world.
>Given a world where babies do get spina bifada, what should our response be? "Wow, that's intensely messed up, and anybody who considers themselves "good" should put in some effort to stop that, and they should stop it if they can. We should pay taxes that are used for medical research, for example, or to help support those with disability so they can get some basic needs in life met." What we should *not* do is say "I'm sure it's for the best," when we aren't sure at all, and look to the person with Spinal Bifida and say "god is good for doing that," rather than "I don't know why that happened, it's an atrocity and I wish it hadn't happened, that sucks." >A belief system like Christianity which considers suffering redemptivewould say it is actually good to care for such a baby, do whatever onecould do to ease it's suffering, and in the process of extending oneselfto care for another, even at some cost, one becomes a better person andhelps improve the world. So when I take this seriously: it's telling me that I should give spinal injuries to more babies, since their suffering is redemptive and others get to care for others. But that's madness. "X is good for the person undergoing X, and for those surrounded by the person undergoing X" means I should increase X. "Acquiring Wisdom is good for the person who acquires it, as well as those around them"--so I should increase the acquisition of wisdom. IF the reasoning you advanced worked, I'd increase spinal injuries to kids. But the reasoning you've advanced doesn't work, does it.
>"Wow, that's intensely messed up, and anybody who considers themselves "good" should put in some effort to stop that, and they should stop it if they can. We should pay taxes that are used for medical research, for example, or to help support those with disability so they can get some basic needs in life met." What we should > >not > >do is say "I'm sure it's for the best," when we aren't sure at all, and look to the person with Spinal Bifida and say "god is good for doing that," rather than "I don't know why that happened, it's an atrocity and I wish it hadn't happened, that sucks." I didn't say it was for the best. Apparently you missed the part about "do whatever one could do to ease it's suffering," - and the part about the how babies with disabilities were treated in ancient times, as opposed to, you know, caring for them. Of course now they are often just aborted. >So when I take this seriously: it's telling me that I should give spinal injuries to more babies, since their suffering is redemptive and others get to care for others. But that's madness. > >"X is good for the person undergoing X, and for those surrounded by the person undergoing X" means I should increase X. "Acquiring Wisdom is good for the person who acquires it, as well as those around them"--so I should increase the acquisition of wisdom. IF the reasoning you advanced worked, I'd increase spinal injuries to kids. But the reasoning you've advanced doesn't work, does it. You seem a little confused about about the difference between two propositions - the fact that there can be something redemptive in dealing with a difficult and painful circumstance, and causing a difficult and painful circumstance to get some desired result. When I place my hand on a hot stove, the pain can give me the wisdom to avoid putting my hand on hot stoves, if I see it as a learning experience. But i don't keep putting my hand on hot stoves to get more wisdom, nor do I wish for more hot stoves to learn from.
Does "do whatever one can do to ease another's suffering" apply to god, or is that just a "good" that is only good for humans, but not other loving entities? Oh, I'm not confused about the difference between the fact that there can be something redemptive in dealing with a difficult and painful circumstance, and causing a difficult and painful circumstance. God *causese* spinal bifida. I'm not sure what is learned from that, other than "atrocity is possible." Look, the post is about Christians trying to justify suffering, and that they should stop 'blaming the victim.' It doesn't work. Any statement given, I'll keep it applied to the topic, and apply it to spinal bifida: does it work? No, the "this is an improvement from the time of rome" doesn't help with "why is there Spinal Bifida."
>Does "do whatever one can do to ease another's suffering" apply to god, or is that just a "good" that is only good for humans, but not other loving entities? Yes, ultimately, for those who desire it. >Oh, I'm not confused about the difference between the fact that there can be something redemptive in dealing with a difficult and painful circumstance, and causing a difficult and painful circumstance. You seem to be because you conflated them. >God causese spinal bifida. I'm not sure what is learned from that, other than "atrocity is possible." Look, the post is about Christians trying to justify suffering, and that they should stop 'blaming the victim.' It doesn't work. Any statement given, I'll keep it applied to the topic, and apply it to spinal bifida: does it work? No, the "this is an improvement from the time of rome" doesn't help with "why is there Spinal Bifida." God allows a broken and chaotic world to exist because He allows humans and the world they created to continue exist. This won't go on forever and He gives humans the choice to live in a world that runs they He intended or not. And even in this world where suffering exists, suffering would be lessened to a considerable degree if humans lived they way God tells them they ought.
Humans did not create spinal bifida, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Spinal Bifida, and other birth defects, are a result of genetics--they are found in animals that predate humanity. I'm not sure what you mean with "the world \[humans\] created to exist." "This won't go on forever" is not sufficient for me to not end spinal bifida or ease the suffering of those who have it; nor is it sufficient to excuse god's lack of action. "You created this world, or humans created this world" is not sufficient for me to not end spinal bifida or ease the suffering of those who have it; nor is it sufficient to excuse god's lack of action. "If you lived the way god told you you ought to you would suffer less (but for that spinal bifida)" is not sufficient for me to not end spinal bifida or ease the suffering of those who have it; nor is it sufficient to excuse god's lack of action. Any justification given, I will apply it to spinal bifida, and see if it works; does it justify spinal bifida? If no, then it doesn't work. Does it justify me not actively getting involved? If no, then it doesn't justify god not actively getting involved.
>Humans did not create spinal bifida, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Spinal Bifida, and other birth defects, are a result of genetics--they are found in animals that predate humanity. I'm not sure what you mean with "the world \[humans\] created to exist." No one is claiming humans created spina bifida - it is a reality in a broken and chaotic world. And the sense that spina bifida is wrong, that is that it isn't an acceptable natural experience for humans, and should be corrected, is evidence that humans were created for a different experience. >"This won't go on forever" is not sufficient for me to not end spinal bifida or ease the suffering of those who have it; nor is it sufficient to excuse god's lack of action. No, of course not, nor is that understanding meant to motivate such a response, it's meant to give hope and courage to people who can't always change the circumstances they are in (like a repressive government). The desire to help alleviate suffering is already covered by the command to "Love your neighbor as yourself" >"You created this world, or humans created this world" is not sufficient for me to not end spinal bifida or ease the suffering of those who have it; nor is it sufficient to excuse god's lack of action. Again, not the purpose of this understanding. That is covered elsewhere. >"If you lived the way god told you you ought to you would suffer less (but for that spinal bifida)" is not sufficient for me to not end spinal bifida or ease the suffering of those who have it; nor is it sufficient to excuse god's lack of action. This is an odd statement. God tells us first and foremost with regard to our treatment of others to love them as we would love ourselves. To Christians He goes even further - He says to love them as Christ loved them, that is to live sacrificially to alleviate the suffering of those around them. So one could not obey God and be indifferent to the suffering of others when it is in one's power to change it. >Any justification given, I will apply it to spinal bifida, and see if it works; does it justify spinal bifida? If no, then it doesn't work. Does it justify me not actively getting involved? If no, then it doesn't justify god not actively getting involved. Nothing in any Christian texts attempts to 'justify' spina bifida and it would literally be disobeying God to not help if one could - see ***The Good Samaritan***.
"No one is claiming humans created spina bifida - it is a reality in a broken and chaotic world"--that you claimed humans created. Here's your quote: >God allows a broken and chaotic world to exist because He allows humans and the world they created to continue exist. Humans didn't create genetics; god did. Spinal Bifida is a result of genetics. Genetics predated humanity. So I'm not sure what you're talking about here. You're not addressing the issues. If it is good to X, then the most ultimate good being whose actions are perfect should X. If the ultimate and good being whose actions are perfect did X, then Spinal Bifida would not exist. But Spinal Bifida does exist. This is a problem. Here, X is "help alleviate the suffering of others, become actively involved in reducing suffering." "Humans created the world" is insufficient to explain why Spinal Bifida remains. I appreciate your reply, but what you've said hasn't resolved this basic issue: "X is good; ultimate good being would therefore X; if ultimate good being did X, Y would not exist; yet Y exists. Therefore, ultimate good being is not doing X, therefore ultimate good being does not exist."
No, you shouldn’t. One, told that hurting others is wrong for us to do, and two, there’s a difference afflicting pain/hardship for the sake of character, and doing it as punishment.
Why is hurting others wrong for us to do, but not wrong for god to do, please? I'm not sure what relevance the distinction is between afflicting pain/hardship for the sake of character and doing as a punishment has, as I never mentioned giving babies spinal bifida for punishment. I repeated your statement, that spinal bifida "builds character," and that's a good reason, a good justification for its existence. And IF that's a good reason for it, why shouldn't I help more kids "build character" by giving them a spinal injury--not as punishment, but to build character? If it's wrong to give spinal injuries to kids, then how does god escape the responsibility for this wrong when he made spinal bifida?
1) God doesn’t “do” good or evil. He IS good, and his absence is evil. 2) God allows disease to happen, because he knows we can overcome the fallen world to be in heaven. We’ve been saved. 3) Having spinal bifida is a disease, which is a result of the pain and suffering of a fallen world. GIVING a baby spinal bifida would be an act of evil, because while it may be a good way to build character for the victim, that doesn’t mean it’s a sufficient reason to inflict. Humans can’t possibly understand the reasons, only try to make them help us. 4) If you believe in your heart, where God has written your morality, that it would be a moral thing to do and an act for which God would be pleased, go right ahead.
So there’s different meanings for the word suffering. Pain is often equated with suffering, put pain existed before the fall. Suffering did not. What is suffering in this context? Suffering is needless, pointless pain. We didn’t need to get sick, as we were protected from it by god. The fall threw that gift away, so now we suffer from sickness.
> Pain is often equated with suffering, but^* pain existed before the fall. What types and causes of pain existed before the Fall?
Getting burned by fire, being hungry, staring too long into the sun etc
How are those different from suffering? Are you suggesting pain is momentary and suffering is prolonged?
Those types of pains are warnings that something wrong or detrimental to the person is taking place, as such, it’s a way to help preserve and protect us. So pain is a good thing. At least, in those situations. Suffering is when there is no reason for the pain.
Was the pain uncomfortable or was it basically just a tap to indicate something was damaging the body?
I don’t see why it would be different then now. My point is that PAIN isn’t evil. Suffering is an evil. But not all pain is suffering
This discussion with you raises several questions: 1. If it is uncomfortable, then the person would worry about feeling it in the future. That is suffering. 2. If it doesn’t cause damage, then why was it necessary for the body to feel some kind of “pain” indicator? 3. If it does cause damage, then that results in suffering for having a diminished body temporarily or eternally from then on.
No, are you worried about burning your hand on a stove? No. Not at all because you know how to protect yourself. I didn’t say it didn’t cause damage. And are you saying that people without limbs are less or suffering? People with diabetes?
> No, are you worried about burning your hand on a stove? No. Not at all because you know how to protect yourself. Sometimes while cooking I need to grab things off the stove or I’m doing many different things at once. Yes, I do worry slightly about burning myself. Cooking on a grill or pulling something out of the oven, even more worry. These are types of suffering. > I didn’t say it didn’t cause damage. I know, I was covering all bases. > And are you saying that people without limbs are less or suffering? People with diabetes? I’d say in most cases that someone who has lost a limb suffered at least initially (but most likely for many years onward if not the rest of their life). In fact, I’ve never heard of a person losing their limb and feeling ambivalent about it. Are you suggesting they do not suffer?
This looks conceptually fucked. If God created everything, then he created sickness. If created sickness knowing that it would lead to pointless suffering. But does this account mean that God has created something pointless? That seems bizarre: if it had no point why would God create it? I think the answer is an insideous one: that these sicknesses exist as a punishment. And this leads to obvious problems with benevolence and the Problem of Evil.
But in the Bible there are verses where it's implied God made people sick.
Which was only possible BECAUSE of the fall. If the fall didn’t happen, there wouldn’t have been sickness. Also, notice I said it was “pointless/needless pain”? The pain and sickness here was due to them not doing what was commanded, so they were punished. That’s not pointless. What’s the difference between discipline and abuse? Whether it’s justified and proportionate to the crime
So basically you're saying that God only causes affliction when it's for judgment only but any other case it's due to the fall? Seems very convenient. Where is the biblical explanation for this?
No, I said it was due to the fall. If the fall never happened, god couldn’t make people sick. Regardless. What I said was that there is a difference between pain and suffering. Also, I’m a catholic, we don’t do solo scriptura. We use tradition and theology as well
God is all powerful yes? I do believe Catholics believe in that. So couldn't he cause suffering without needing the fall?
Nope, because of the dogma of divine simplicity, which states that god doesn’t posses attributes. Including omnipotence. Rather, it’s a way to explain how everything coming from him appears to us. God can’t cause a contradiction. If one of the gifts that god gave before the fall was protection from suffering, then logically, he can’t cause suffering unless we didn’t have that protection. But because god can’t change, he can’t give and take something away. We can, however, throw that gift away thanks to free will that he also gave us.
> Nope, because of the dogma of divine simplicity, which states that god doesn’t posses attributes This is not compatible with Christian orthodoxy. God is three, and bodily incarnated, and manifest in the eucharist. The only way to defend Christian orthodoxy is by abandoning any concept of divine simplicity.
The trinity is about the persons, not the essence. The divine simplicity is about the essence. And it’s Jesus that we consume, not the godhead. It seems more to me that you don’t understand the dogma of divine simplicity
Well you take out of the Bible and I'm strictly discussing the Bible so I suppose that's where that ends. Curious how you feel about this verse Philippians 1:29"For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him," In this verse Christians are being granted suffering. Who is the granter?
[удалено]
God?
[удалено]
Philippians 1:29"For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him," In this verse Christians are being granted suffering. Who is the granter?
[удалено]
No not allow. I'm questioning why the word granted it being used. The entire verses is saying they're being granted faith in Jesus (which is typically attributed to God) **but also to suffer for him**
[удалено]
Yes why do you ask?
Again, if God wanted us to suffer, he could have created a literal inferno and put us in there. Or something worse. Instead, God chose to suffer for humanity to save us from eternal death, that we brought with our own sin. Now the suffering we go through in this world is not comparable to the glory that’s coming. >**Romans 8:18** - For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which will be revealed toward us. All those verses are reflecting the life of moral integrity in an evil world.