Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Suffering is necessary for free will

  • 09-08-2007 11:31am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848
    ✭✭✭✭


    I'm spinning this off the "I hate mass" thread, because it is a topic that keeps coming up and never seems to be dealt with properly.

    The issue is the excuse given for the suffering in the world that it is a by product of free will. God has given us free will, and because of this some of us use this free will to harm others. Therefore the fact that free will exists in the world is not God's fault, it is ours.

    This isn't a thread about whether or not we have free will. While that is an interesting topic (which I've argued many times that if God exists we don't), for this thread we can accept we do have free will.

    What this thread is about is the question of why it is necessary that God allows us to cause and receive suffering. The argument is that this is required for free will, but as I reply to Spyral below, that simply isn't the case ...
    Spyral wrote:
    God gave people free will as a gift aswell. Free will means that we can do what WE want as opposed to what God wants.

    No, actually it doesn't

    Free will means we can choose to do what God has set the universe up to allow us to do.

    If you don't believe me then attempt to walk through the wall next to you. Or fly. Or breath under water. Or see through stone. Or move a pencil with your eyes. You can't because God has decided to not let you. You still have free will.

    The simple fact of the matter is that God created suffering and then allowed us to choose to inflict it on others. There are plenty of things he hasn't allowed us to do (walk through walls, breath under water, kill people with our mind etc).

    If God didn't want suffering to exist in the world he could have easily created a world were suffering doesn't exist. That wouldn't have effected out free will, it just would have been another restriction upon all the other ones we deal with every day.

    Nothing exists in the world unless God wants it to exist in the world. We cannot choose to do anything unless God is happy that we can choose to do it.


Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,737 Asiaprod
    ✭✭✭


    Wicknight wrote:
    I'm spinning this off the "I hate mass" thread, because it is a topic that keeps coming up and never seems to be dealt with properly.
    Thanks, its an interesting subject,
    Wicknight wrote:
    IIf God didn't want suffering to exist in the world he could have easily created a world were [where] suffering doesn't exist.
    I would ask why he created it in the first place, What does god get out off it.
    This is a genuine question.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 Zombrex
    ✭✭✭✭


    Asiaprod wrote:
    I would ask why he created it in the first place, What does god get out off it.
    This is a genuine question.

    I think the official answer is that it is a gift to us, the assumption being that we would rather exist than not exist.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 JimiTime
    ✭✭✭


    Wicknight wrote:
    I think the official answer is that it is a gift to us, the assumption being that we would rather exist than not exist.

    I don't think there is an official answer. I think there are speculative answers, but only God can realy give the official answer.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 Zombrex
    ✭✭✭✭


    JimiTime wrote:
    I don't think there is an official answer.

    Official as in the Bible


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 MooseJam
    ✭✭✭


    you don't believe in God so it's moot on a grand scale


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 PDN
    ✭✭✭✭


    Wicknight wrote:
    Official as in the Bible

    No, I don't think that free will necessitates suffering. God could , theoretically, have given us free will but also have wrapped us in cotton wool.

    Many of the reasons given by Christians in answer to this question are plain stupid. For example, "God gave us suffering so we would appreciate the good things" or "Suffering is a blessing".

    I think the only honest answer is that we don't know. The New Testament (and indeed the Bible as a whole) is less interested in answering our curiosity as to why things are the way they are, as it is in helping us cope with the way things are. An example of this is in John Chapter 9 where the disciples wanted to have a debate as to why a man was born blind, but Jesus was more interested in healing the man than in satisfying their curiosity.

    As a pastor I occasionally have to sit with those who are bereaved and grieving (our church has a very young age-profile, so I probably do this less than most ministers of similar sized churches). People often ask why God allowed this to happen, and I always feel that any attempt at theodicy (justifying God) is only going to be shallow, irrelevant and devoid of any capacity to bring comfort. Usually I point out the fact that God himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ, took pain suffering & grief upon himself, and that he is not unmoved by our grief and suffering. My interest is in helping people cope with grief and suffering, not explaining why it happens.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 38 quirk.


    Why would a supposedly good God give us free will knowing in advance the terrible pain and suffering which it would cause?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 Galvasean
    ✭✭✭✭


    PDN wrote:
    No, I don't think that free will necessitates suffering. God could , theoretically, have given us free will but also have wrapped us in cotton wool.
    Agreed. If God is omniscient surely he could make existence perfect.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 885 Spyral
    ✭✭✭


    God gave people free will as a gift aswell. Free will means that we can do what WE want as opposed to what God wants.

    ok then and addendum .. withing the rules and laws of the universe which he has set down and to which even he adheres


    and becasue I go around raping people they suffer. God doesnt make me do it I just do it coz I want to therefor I cause the suffering. I abuse my free will.

    If I give you a gun and you shoot someone is it my fault ? I doubt it as you are the person who shot them.

    (note Im not actually a rapist)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,857 indough
    ✭✭✭


    quirk. wrote:
    Why would a supposedly good God give us free will knowing in advance the terrible pain and suffering which it would cause?

    I guess it's like a test. Not unreasonable really


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 Scofflaw
    ✭✭✭✭


    indough wrote:
    I guess it's like a test. Not unreasonable really

    Well, except for God knowing the results in advance - or indeed without doing the test in the first place. Being omniscient, and all.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 38 quirk.


    Yes but then could we really say that God is 'good'?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 MooseJam
    ✭✭✭


    Galvasean wrote:
    Agreed. If God is omniscient surely he could make existence perfect.

    If existence is perfect there would be much less need for God, you would not need to pray for Joe to survive cancer etc etc, God made the world dangerous to keep us on our knees giving Him attention.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 Fanny Cradock
    ✭✭✭✭


    MooseJam wrote:
    If existence is perfect there would be much less need for God, you would not need to pray for Joe to survive cancer etc etc, God made the world dangerous to keep us on our knees giving Him attention.

    So, if life was perfect you would reject God, the originator of perfection?


    Anyway, unlike PDN, I can't conceive of a world where limited choices (i.e. the ability to only do good) would be consistent with free will.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 MooseJam
    ✭✭✭


    So, if life was perfect you would reject God, the originator of perfection?

    No I'm saying if life was perfect you would turn to God much less, after all it is mostly during the hard times that we turn to God, so I postulate God made suffering in order that we kneel to him more often.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 38 quirk.


    MooseJam wrote:
    No I'm saying if life was perfect you would turn to God much less, after all it is mostly during the hard times that we turn to God, so I postulate God made suffering in order that we kneel to him more often.

    Thats not really fair though on starving children or women who are being raped.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 Scofflaw
    ✭✭✭✭


    So, if life was perfect you would reject God, the originator of perfection?

    Anyway, unlike PDN, I can't conceive of a world where limited choices (i.e. the ability to only do good) would be consistent with free will.

    You could choose to do good, or not to do good. That you couldn't choose to kill someone does not limit your ability to choose to help them or not.

    As Wicknight says, you cannot of your own free will decide to walk through a wall, so our choices are already constrained to what is physically possible for us. By making it physically (or physiologically) impossible for us to kill or rape, you do not really constrain our choices very much.

    After all, if you take two people, neither of whom ever commit a criminal act, we can still tell who is good and who is not if one spends their life helping others and the other spends it entirely selfishly. Not killing and raping is really rather a minimum standard of goodness - eliminating it entirely does not remove an expression of free will that divides the good from the selfish.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 JimiTime
    ✭✭✭


    Scofflaw wrote:
    You could choose to do good, or not to do good. That you couldn't choose to kill someone does not limit your ability to choose to help them or not.

    As Wicknight says, you cannot of your own free will decide to walk through a wall, so our choices are already constrained to what is physically possible for us. By making it physically (or physiologically) impossible for us to kill or rape, you do not really constrain our choices very much.

    After all, if you take two people, neither of whom ever commit a criminal act, we can still tell who is good and who is not if one spends their life helping others and the other spends it entirely selfishly. Not killing and raping is really rather a minimum standard of goodness - eliminating it entirely does not remove an expression of free will that divides the good from the selfish.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Adams act was an act of rebellion. The serpent said 'you will be like God, knowing good and bad'. Now, this whole world serves as a testimony that man canot govern itself. It will probably take us until the sky falls or the sea rises etc etc to realise that. All the science in the world is not going to stop man from destroying itself. Man needs God, and in time, all will know this, and for some it'll only be when Jesus comes again. But such is mans arrogance.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 Zombrex
    ✭✭✭✭


    Anyway, unlike PDN, I can't conceive of a world where limited choices (i.e. the ability to only do good) would be consistent with free will.

    You already live in a universe FULL of limited choices.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 Zombrex
    ✭✭✭✭


    JimiTime wrote:
    Man needs God, and in time, all will know this, and for some it'll only be when Jesus comes again. But such is mans arrogance.

    I think that Moosejam's point.

    God has created (on purpose) a dangerous harmful world so that we would turn to him for protection and salvation.

    A bit selfish in my opinion. God could have created a world devoid of harm, where it was not physically possible to harm other life forms. He decided not to. Probably because there would be no need for him to save anyone and he would have nothing to do.

    It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Marge is in the house, Bart and Homer are off doing something, she is feeling a bit lonely, so she goes upstairs and wakes Maggie up. Maggie of course starts crying and Marge goes "There there, there there, mommy is here!", picks her up and cuddles with here as if she was helping Maggie.

    It sounds, TBH, as if God was in need of worship, so he created a miserable wretched world full of violent humans so that we would all turn to him and say "Save us!" and he could go "Ah my children, I will save you!" :rolleyes:

    God is the ultimately version of the person who causes the car accident so he can save everyone from the wreck.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 JimiTime
    ✭✭✭


    Wicknight wrote:
    You already live in a universe FULL of limited choices.


    Free will to choose in the realm of the physical world. We don't have the choice to defy gravity. We don't have the choice to turn ourselves into monkeys. we don't have the choice to eat through our ears, we don't have the choice walk on our noses. Like, what a ridiculous point you make!

    We have free will to choose and do things that are physically possible. 'Yeh, so why didn't god not make it physically impossible to rape someone?' Well maybe because if you let people physically touch each other, someone can abuse it and attack someone. These kind of juvenile philosiphies are just ridiculous.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 Zombrex
    ✭✭✭✭


    JimiTime wrote:
    Free will to choose in the realm of the physical world. We don't have the choice to defy gravity. We don't have the choice to turn ourselves into monkeys. we don't have the choice to eat through our ears, we don't have the choice walk on our noses. Like, what a ridiculous point you make!

    Its not ridiculous at all. Who is supposed to have created the rules of the "physical world" in the first place?

    At one point God decided "Humans cannot fly" And one point God decided "Humans will not be able to breath under water" And one point God decided that the atomic forces holding atoms together will not allow other atoms to pass through. And at some point God decided "It will be possible for a human to beat another human to death with blunt object"
    JimiTime wrote:
    'Yeh, so why didn't god not make it physically impossible to rape someone?' Well maybe because if you let people physically touch each other, someone can abuse it and attack someone. These kind of juvenile philosiphies are just ridiculous.

    So you are saying that God, in his infinite wisdom, could not have figured out a way to allow "Good touch" without "Bad touch"

    Why when theists like yourself, or JC, run into a problem like this you always fall back on the God is an idiot (my term btw) theory.

    God is supposed to be all powerful and infinite wisdom. By definition, God can designed the universe any way he wants. If God wants to design a universe where we can touch each other but only in a good way then God can design a universe where we can touch each other but only in a good way. In fact he can design an infinite number of them, all different Nothing is in the universe with out God wanting it to be there

    With an omniscient, omnipotent being there is no such thing as "It had to be this way", there is only "It is exactly the way I want" There are no constraints on God's power.

    Claiming he cannot is ridiculous, and also (I think) blasphemy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 The Mad Hatter
    ✭✭✭


    Wicknight wrote:
    God is the ultimately version of the person who causes the car accident so he can save everyone from the wreck.

    Or maybe just the first part?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 JimiTime
    ✭✭✭


    Wicknight wrote:
    Its not ridiculous at all. Who is supposed to have created the rules of the "physical world" in the first place?

    At one point God decided "Humans cannot fly" And one point God decided "Humans will not be able to breath under water" And one point God decided that the atomic forces holding atoms together will not allow other atoms to pass through. And at some point God decided "It will be possible for a human to beat another human to death with blunt object"



    So you are saying that God, in his infinite wisdom, could not have figured out a way to allow "Good touch" without "Bad touch"

    Why when theists like yourself, or JC, run into a problem like this you always fall back on the God is an idiot (my term btw) theory.

    God is supposed to be all powerful and infinite wisdom. By definition, God can designed the universe any way he wants. If God wants to design a universe where we can touch each other but only in a good way then God can design a universe where we can touch each other but only in a good way. In fact he can design an infinite number of them, all different Nothing is in the universe with out God wanting it to be there

    With an omniscient, omnipotent being there is no such thing as "It had to be this way", there is only "It is exactly the way I want" There are no constraints on God's power.

    Claiming he cannot is ridiculous, and also (I think) blasphemy.

    i've said it before and I'll say it again. Its an arrogant, poorly thought and juvenile thought IMO. You assume that there is a better way. Fair enough. Assume away, doesn't make your assumption any more valid. You assume that there is a better way. Just saying 'there must be look at this or that' is still merely assumption, a poor one at that. We have partial knowledge. Man in his frustration with this will get ahead of himself, such as your point above, and general behaviour on the forum. 'We don't need God, we have science to give us the answers'. Precisely, 'Oh look the earth is distressing over its overharvesting of its resources and it is dieing, but at least we know how it happened. Thank science'. And also look, scientists are saying Global warming is going do possibly destroy our planet and kill millions. Will man really take heed? Look at China, Usa, Russia. As I said, It won't be until Jesus himself comes again, that people will realise that Man cannot rule over themselves.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 Zombrex
    ✭✭✭✭


    JimiTime wrote:
    You assume that there is a better way.

    I don't assume there is a better way Jimi. By definition (your religions definition BTW) there must be a better way.

    Think of it this way, if there isn't a better way that means that God is constrained in what he can do. We might want to do things better but he cannot, for some unknown reason. That is a logical impossibility since God is omnipotent. There is, by definition, always a better way. Either that or you definition of God is wrong and he isn't really omnipotent.
    JimiTime wrote:
    You assume that there is a better way.
    And you assume there isn't. The difference is that your assumption constrains God in what he can do, which contradicts your religion's definition of God. Which seems a bit silly and unthought out on your part.
    JimiTime wrote:
    'We don't need God, we have science to give us the answers'.
    I think it is more "God/Religion has never ever given us a single answer that has turned out to be correct or useful. We need science"

    If you want to list the "answers" that God has given us about the natural world around us and how it works go ahead, but the list will be blank.
    JimiTime wrote:
    And also look, scientists are saying Global warming is going do possibly destroy our planet and kill millions.

    Yes, because God told you about global warming long before the crazy scientists figured it out :rolleyes:
    JimiTime wrote:
    As I said, It won't be until Jesus himself comes again, that people will realise that Man cannot rule over themselves.

    Well you can wait for that Jimi, the rest of us are going to get on with the boring business of improving the world for the people living here now :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 The Mad Hatter
    ✭✭✭


    Wicknight wrote:
    Well you can wait for that Jimi, the rest of us are going to get on with the boring business of improving the world for the people living here now :rolleyes:

    Hm...I'm just curious as to the ratio of global warming activists as religious to non-religious types.

    Edit: I'm sure someone can interpret that in proper English for me, I'm very tired.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 Scofflaw
    ✭✭✭✭


    JimiTime wrote:
    Adams act was an act of rebellion. The serpent said 'you will be like God, knowing good and bad'. Now, this whole world serves as a testimony that man canot govern itself. It will probably take us until the sky falls or the sea rises etc etc to realise that. All the science in the world is not going to stop man from destroying itself. Man needs God, and in time, all will know this, and for some it'll only be when Jesus comes again. But such is mans arrogance.

    Hmm. Not really an answer to the point? You appear to be talking about whether Man can rule over himself, whereas I was just pointing out that rape and murder don't appear to be necessary to sort out the sheep and the goats.

    Did I press a hidden button or something?

    slightly confused,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 JimiTime
    ✭✭✭


    Scofflaw wrote:
    Hmm. Not really an answer to the point? You appear to be talking about whether Man can rule over himself, whereas I was just pointing out that rape and murder don't appear to be necessary to sort out the sheep and the goats.

    Did I press a hidden button or something?

    slightly confused,
    Scofflaw

    Actually, it does give an anwser to the question. Gods sovreignty was challenged, so man has been allowed to live without God. The rape etc are just some of the the things that have come about from man making bad choices to say the least. Necessary? not really. But man has chosen to carry out these acts outside of God and thus these things serve as a testimony to the fact that man can't govern themselves and need God to intervene.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 MooseJam
    ✭✭✭


    JimiTime wrote:
    But man has chosen to carry out these acts outside of God and thus these things serve as a testimony to the fact that man can't govern themselves and need God to intervene.

    I take it you didn't vote in the last election so


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 Zombrex
    ✭✭✭✭


    JimiTime wrote:
    Actually, it does give an anwser to the question. Gods sovreignty was challenged, so man has been allowed to live without God. The rape etc are just some of the the things that have come about from man making bad choices to say the least. Necessary? not really. But man has chosen to carry out these acts outside of God and thus these things serve as a testimony to the fact that man can't govern themselves and need God to intervene.

    So how exactly does God stop rape from happening? :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 JimiTime
    ✭✭✭


    Wicknight wrote:
    So how exactly does God stop rape from happening? :rolleyes:

    ey?:confused: Not quite getting u??


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 Zombrex
    ✭✭✭✭


    JimiTime wrote:
    ey?:confused: Not quite getting u??

    Well you say we need God to intervene. When has God ever intervened in a rape?

    Oh and by the way, surely by your own logic above, that isn't possible since this is supposed to be the "best" that God could have set the universe up as (and isn't it very arrogant of us to suppose that things can be better?).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 JimiTime
    ✭✭✭


    Wicknight wrote:
    Well you say we need God to intervene. When has God ever intervened in a rape?

    You completely mis-understand. He will intervene on his appointed day of Judgement.
    Oh and by the way, surely by your own logic above, that isn't possible since this is supposed to be the "best" that God could have set the universe up as (and isn't it very arrogant of us to suppose that things can be better?).

    Ehh, again you obviously did not read the various postings or give it thought. It was never suggested that this is as good as it gets. The point was, that you assume we are faulty by design and that there was a better way. However, I said that this is an assumption. For those who don't abuse their free will and walk with God will be eternally blessed. Not in the present system of things but in the next. When i said god chose the best method, I didn't say that we are currently living in the best of circumstances. But Gods way of dealing with the falling of man is the best way. We may not see how, we can assume how, but again its assumptions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 Zombrex
    ✭✭✭✭


    JimiTime wrote:
    You completely mis-understand. He will intervene on his appointed day of Judgement.
    That isn't intervening. You cannot intervene after the event.

    How does this improve things now? (you do realise that this is the topic of the thread?)
    JimiTime wrote:
    It was never suggested that this is as good as it gets. The point was, that you assume we are faulty by design and that there was a better way. However, I said that this is an assumption.

    Actually what you said was that it is assumption that God hasn't didn't have to do it this way. For example

    "Well maybe because if you let people physically touch each other, someone can abuse it and attack someone."

    You are saying there that maybe God had to allow people to attack people because otherwise we wouldn't be able to touch.

    I've no idea when you got onto talking about the after life, but the rest of us never were.
    JimiTime wrote:
    For those who don't abuse their free will and walk with God will be eternally blessed. Not in the present system of things but in the next.
    And God set things up this way why exactly ... ?

    What is the purpose of this existence? And why is it possible to kill and harm people in this existence, but not possible in heaven? What is the purpose of this? Do people not have free will in heaven?
    JimiTime wrote:
    When i said god chose the best method, I didn't say that we are currently living in the best of circumstances.
    That is certainly what your posts implied, that God could not have made this existence (again when exactly did you start talking about the afterlife?) better than it is.
    JimiTime wrote:
    But Gods way of dealing with the falling of man is the best way.
    It would appear not. In fact it appears very convoluted and round about way to get people to beg for an after life.

    Why not just put everyone into heaven? What purpose does this existence serve?
    JimiTime wrote:
    We may not see how, we can assume how, but again its assumptions.

    Isn't it much more of an assumption to suppose that this is actually the best way to do things? All evidence and logic suggests otherwise. So really, what is the most logical conclusion?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 100 juddd
    ✭✭


    I think free will is there so that we can make both good and bad choices in life and learn from our mistakes, to be able to see things from every perspective and make a well informed judgement, to be sitting on both sides of the fence as it were.
    If we know nothing of evil or suffering then how are we expected to both recognise it and deal with it when it happens, I just think free will is there to help us learn and grow and become a better person through making the wrong choice and learning from that mistake, if we all lived in a protective bubble and knew nothing of the harshness of life then our learning of things would be pretty one-sided.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 Zombrex
    ✭✭✭✭


    juddd wrote:
    I think free will is there so that we can make both good and bad choices in life and learn from our mistakes, to be able to see things from every perspective and make a well informed judgement, to be sitting on both sides of the fence as it were.
    If we know nothing of evil or suffering then how are we expected to both recognise it and deal with it when it happens

    Why would we need to do any of that if suffering didn't exist in the first place?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 JimiTime
    ✭✭✭


    Wicknight wrote:
    That isn't intervening. You cannot intervene after the event.

    Any chance you could read over my postings again, and figure out what I mean when I say intevention? Actually, any idea of the top of your head what I mean when I say intevention?

    How does this improve things now?

    It doesn't. Thats never been my arguement! Nor is it diverting away from the OP. My point has always been, that we are shortsighted. To assume that there is a better way, is an assumption. And by better way, I mean, the creation of Man and then the subsequent dealing with his rebellion.
    Actually what you said was that it is assumption that God hasn't didn't have to do it this way. For example

    "Well maybe because if you let people physically touch each other, someone can abuse it and attack someone."

    You are saying there that maybe God had to allow people to attack people because otherwise we wouldn't be able to touch.

    Yes. I said God had to allow us to attack each other because otherwise we couldn't touch:rolleyes: I made that comment in response to your assumption that God could have done things better. I argued as I've said, that we are shortsighted. It was a 'maybe' comment to show that maybe it is the best way and you just don't see it. Me being speculitive! I've fallen hook line and sinker into your atheist ramblings again. I'm a little annoyed with myself. Thank you though, by showing me the alternative, you reinforce my faith:p


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 Scofflaw
    ✭✭✭✭


    JimiTime wrote:
    Actually, it does give an anwser to the question. Gods sovreignty was challenged, so man has been allowed to live without God. The rape etc are just some of the the things that have come about from man making bad choices to say the least. Necessary? not really. But man has chosen to carry out these acts outside of God and thus these things serve as a testimony to the fact that man can't govern themselves and need God to intervene.

    No, it isn't an answer, because it's provably unnecessary for God to have made rape possible in the first place, rebellion or no rebellion. Unless of course you subscribe to the theory of a jealous and vindictive God - which I think has plenty of evidential support.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 JimiTime
    ✭✭✭


    Scofflaw wrote:
    No, it isn't an answer, because it's provably unnecessary for God to have made rape possible in the first place, rebellion or no rebellion.
    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    God turned away from Man after man rebelled. God gave man the ability to reproduce through sexual intercourse, originally in his perfect system in line with his glory and love. Man rebels, basically says, I don't want or need you, and is cast out from this system. Then wityh the instruments God gave, man eventually used them for wickedness. I.E. Rape, murder etc etc. God let man get on with doing what they wanted (within the bounds of the physical laws he created), Man afterall, didn't need him. You and wicknights arguement, seem to rest on the fact that God should have made it possible to eat but not bite. Be able to touch but not hit. Be able to have sex but not be able to rape. My arguement, is that its just shortsighted assumptions on your part. We do not know fully his reasonings, and any attempt to do so is speculative. You do not know the consequence of not allowing us to touch etc would be, because you have not had 6000 years to witness it. All you have are assumptions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 Zombrex
    ✭✭✭✭


    JimiTime wrote:
    Any chance you could read over my postings again, and figure out what I mean when I say intevention?

    Well Jimi I've no idea what you mean when you say "intervention," beyond that you are clearly using the wrong word. Perhaps if you used the correct word I would understand what you actually meant. Though what this has to do with suffering in the world I've no idea.

    You have said man cannot govern himself. You say God needs to intervene. You then say this "intervention" will take place at the end of time when God is passing judgment. That clearly doesn't make sense if "intervene" is the word you mean to use. At the end of time man won't be governing himself, what exactly would God be interrupting?

    It would be like saying a fight broke out at 2 am in Dublin and 6 months later the judge prosecuting the 2 thugs intervened in the fight.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 Zombrex
    ✭✭✭✭


    JimiTime wrote:
    God turned away from Man after man rebelled.
    By "man" do you mean Adam, ie one individual man?
    JimiTime wrote:
    Man rebels, basically says, I don't want or need you, and is cast out from this system.
    Pretty sure Adam didn't say that. I think he ate an fruit he was told not to eat. That is pretty much it.
    JimiTime wrote:
    Then wityh the instruments God gave, man eventually used them for wickedness. I.E. Rape, murder etc etc.
    As God wanted them to when he designed them and gave them that option. Otherwise why give them the option in the first place? As we established its not necessary for free will, nor is it necessary to exist. Can you rape and murder people in heaven?
    JimiTime wrote:
    God let man get on with doing what they wanted (within the bounds of the physical laws he created)
    Created on purpose knowing that they would be used in this way.
    JimiTime wrote:
    You and wicknights arguement, seem to rest on the fact that God should have made it possible to eat but not bite.
    Why do we have to eat? Do you eat in heaven? I imagine not. Can you bite someone to death in heaven? I imagine not. Can you rape someone in heaven? I imagine not.

    So why are any of these things necessary on Earth?
    JimiTime wrote:
    We do not know fully his reasonings, and any attempt to do so is speculative.
    That is irrelevant. What ever his reasons suffering only exists because God wishes it to exist.
    JimiTime wrote:
    You do not know the consequence of not allowing us to touch etc would be, because you have not had 6000 years to witness it. All you have are assumptions.

    Well I imagine you assume that you cannot be hurt in heaven ... :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 100 juddd
    ✭✭


    Wicknight wrote:
    Why would we need to do any of that if suffering didn't exist in the first place?
    We wouldnt need it, but im afraid suffering does exist.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 The Mad Hatter
    ✭✭✭


    juddd wrote:
    We wouldnt need it, but im afraid suffering does exist.

    Yes, but (I'm showing considerable restraint here, btw) your argument is that suffering exists so that we can learn about suffering. If suffering didn't exist, then we wouldn't need to learn about suffering.

    If the only reason that we suffer is so that we can learn about suffering, then why would something design us to feel suffering?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 Zombrex
    ✭✭✭✭


    Yes, but (I'm showing considerable restraint here, btw) your argument is that suffering exists so that we can learn about suffering. If suffering didn't exist, then we wouldn't need to learn about suffering.

    If the only reason that we suffer is so that we can learn about suffering, then why would something design us to feel suffering?

    I'm glad you posted first Hatter, because you showed more restraint in that reply that I think I could have managed :) :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 100 juddd
    ✭✭


    Yes, but (I'm showing considerable restraint here, btw) your argument is that suffering exists so that we can learn about suffering. If suffering didn't exist, then we wouldn't need to learn about suffering.

    If the only reason that we suffer is so that we can learn about suffering, then why would something design us to feel suffering?

    So that we may learn from the suffering not so much to learn about suffering but to learn from it, how we react to it, how we feel about it, how we treat others who are suffering.
    And there is no need to get all worked up about it, its just my opinion, it may not be the right opinion, but I just thought I would add to the debate, but if you would prefer if I did not post anything then thats fine I will keep my opinions to myself and let you good folks continue.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 The Mad Hatter
    ✭✭✭


    juddd wrote:
    So that we may learn from the suffering not so much to learn about suffering but to learn from it, how we react to it, how we feel about it, how we treat others who are suffering.

    But if there was no suffering, none of that would be necessary. Yes, there is suffering, but that was exactly the point that Wicknight made. The only things to learn from suffering are related to suffering.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 Zombrex
    ✭✭✭✭


    juddd wrote:
    So that we may learn from the suffering not so much to learn about suffering but to learn from it, how we react to it, how we feel about it, how we treat others who are suffering..

    Why do we need to learn from suffering if suffering doesn't exist in the first place?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 100 juddd
    ✭✭


    But if there was no suffering, none of that would be necessary. Yes, there is suffering, but that was exactly the point that Wicknight made. The only things to learn from suffering are related to suffering.
    But do you not think that you can grow as an individual and a human being through your suffering and the suffering of others? im sure those dying in africa and other parts of the world would disagree with me, but sometimes you have to witness such things to motivate you to do something about it.
    You can watch a starving child on T.V and say "ohh thats terrible" while tucking into your dinner, but until you actually go and physically witness, smell, taste, and hear the suffering of that child and others only then might you truely feel the need to do something about it, and while you are helping those in need you are learning more and more about yourself and life itself.
    Would you be able to learn those things by sitting at home away from the suffering?
    "The only things to learn from suffering are related to suffering"
    Yes you are right, everything we learn from suffering is related to the suffering we have witnessed or have felt ourselves because of that suffering, but why mention something so obvious?, are you treating suffering just as a singular thing and that all we can learn from suffering is suffering itself?
    Wicknight wrote:
    Why do we need to learn from suffering if suffering doesn't exist in the first place?

    I dont think I know how to answer that question, I may need to ponder that for a while, are you saying if suffering did not exist and that there would never be any suffering at all in the future ever? If so are you also saying that we would be immortal and never have to suffer the loss of a loved one through their death from old age, or someone dying in an accident or hundreds of people dead from a hurricane etc?
    Does not the very fact that there is life and death mean that along the way there is going to be suffering?

    These are all very interesting opinions and I am just trying to get my point across, sorry if I seem a tad straight forward I mean no disrespect.
    Of course I am probably completly wrong and god is looking down on me and shaking his head and calling me a fool.....lol


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 The Mad Hatter
    ✭✭✭


    juddd wrote:
    But do you not think that you can grow as an individual and a human being through your suffering and the suffering of others?
    *

    I do! But you're missing the issue! If there was no suffering, then we wouldn't need to learn about suffering. I would have thought that that was obvious. And yes, we're being extraordinarily hypothetical here.

    That's not necessarily my belief, by the way. I'm just replying for Wicknight. Don't ask me why.






    *Just quoting this part as it seems to be the centre of your argument.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 Scofflaw
    ✭✭✭✭


    juddd wrote:
    But do you not think that you can grow as an individual and a human being through your suffering and the suffering of others? im sure those dying in africa and other parts of the world would disagree with me, but sometimes you have to witness such things to motivate you to do something about it.
    You can watch a starving child on T.V and say "ohh thats terrible" while tucking into your dinner, but until you actually go and physically witness, smell, taste, and hear the suffering of that child and others only then might you truely feel the need to do something about it, and while you are helping those in need you are learning more and more about yourself and life itself.
    Would you be able to learn those things by sitting at home away from the suffering?
    Wicknight wrote:
    Why do we need to learn from suffering if suffering doesn't exist in the first place?

    I dont think I know how to answer that question, sorry!

    Well, apply it back to the example above. Your point is that the child in Africa is suffering, and his suffering motivates us to go and do something about the suffering?

    If the child wasn't suffering, there would be nothing we needed to do - there would be no question of how motivated we might or might not be.

    Unless of course you're arguing that the suffering of the child in Africa is good for us?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Advertisement