Why God Doesn't Prevent Terrible Things, Atheist Poll

[dairygirl4u2c]

i saw a poll from an atheist and wondered how people here would respond. 

 

 

[Papist]

None of the above

[ToJesusMyHeart]

None of the above.

[PhuturePriest]

The answers are biased and asinine. None of the above.

[KnightofChrist]

E: This poll is stoopid and should be spammed with ponies and lolz purtty pictures.

[Papist]

Speaking of terrible things.

[stevil]

So how do people justify the god's inaction?

 

Why does the all powerful and loving god not save small children from burning buildings, from horrific diseases, from rapists and molesterers?

 

Surely, if given the opportunity, you would save the child, why does your god not?

 

What would you think of an adult who could save a child in such a situation, however instead chooses to watch from the sidelines.

[arfink]

So how do people justify the god's inaction?

 

Why does the all powerful and loving god not save small children from burning buildings, from horrific diseases, from rapists and molesterers?

 

Surely, if given the opportunity, you would save the child, why does your god not?

 

What would you think of an adult who could save a child in such a situation, however instead chooses to watch from the sidelines.

 

You rather misunderstand the nature of God's will and activity, which is radically different from the will and activity of human beings.

 

You say God stands at the sidelines as children suffer, but that is hardly true. No suffering is wasted, it is united with God's own suffering. Besides, much, if not all of the suffering in the world is not the result of God's uncaring inactivity, but because He must respect human free will. When humans harm each other, they are acting on their free will. And while it is terrible that anyone would suffer, this suffering can have a distinct and redemptive purpose.

 

Does God directly desire everyone to suffer? Hardly. Does he allow it? Yes. Because love demands freedom. Love that cannot suffer and choose to continue loving anyway is never truly free, and love which could not have chosen otherwise is also never free.

 

And before you counter by saying, "well God does not have to suffer, this is bull$hit!" I would like to remind you that there is no human suffering which can even touch the level of suffering God has put himself through for our sakes. Suffering is as much a part of love as breathing is a part of life.

 

In short: suffering is only as worthless and horrible as you want to make it be. If you want to deny that it has value, then you will probably suffer anyway, and you will become bitter and hate your suffering and the people who cause it, and your God. The way of love is the way to make suffering slightly more bearable and infinitely more useful when it inevitably happens.

Edited June 18, 2013 by arfink

[ToJesusMyHeart]

You rather misunderstand the nature of God's will and activity, which is radically different from the will and activity of human beings.

 

You say God stands at the sidelines as children suffer, but that is hardly true. No suffering is wasted, it is united with God's own suffering. Besides, much, if not all of the suffering in the world is not the result of God's uncaring inactivity, but because He must respect human free will. When humans harm each other, they are acting on their free will. And while it is terrible that anyone would suffer, this suffering can have a distinct and redemptive purpose.

 

Does God directly desire everyone to suffer? Hardly. Does he allow it? Yes. Because love demands freedom. Love that cannot suffer and choose to continue loving anyway is never truly free, and love which could not have chosen otherwise is also never free.

 

And before you counter by saying, "well God does not have to suffer, this is bull$hit!" I would like to remind you that there is no human suffering which can even touch the level of suffering God has put himself through for our sakes. Suffering is as much a part of love as breathing is a part of life.

 

In short: suffering is only as worthless and horrible as you want to make it be. If you want to deny that it has value, then you will probably suffer anyway, and you will become bitter and hate your suffering and the people who cause it, and your God. The way of love is the way to make suffering slightly more bearable and infinitely more useful when it inevitably happens.

 

Excellent. 

 

:bravo:

[PhuturePriest]

You rather misunderstand the nature of God's will and activity, which is radically different from the will and activity of human beings.

 

You say God stands at the sidelines as children suffer, but that is hardly true. No suffering is wasted, it is united with God's own suffering. Besides, much, if not all of the suffering in the world is not the result of God's uncaring inactivity, but because He must respect human free will. When humans harm each other, they are acting on their free will. And while it is terrible that anyone would suffer, this suffering can have a distinct and redemptive purpose.

 

Does God directly desire everyone to suffer? Hardly. Does he allow it? Yes. Because love demands freedom. Love that cannot suffer and choose to continue loving anyway is never truly free, and love which could not have chosen otherwise is also never free.

 

And before you counter by saying, "well God does not have to suffer, this is bull$hit!" I would like to remind you that there is no human suffering which can even touch the level of suffering God has put himself through for our sakes. Suffering is as much a part of love as breathing is a part of life.

 

In short: suffering is only as worthless and horrible as you want to make it be. If you want to deny that it has value, then you will probably suffer anyway, and you will become bitter and hate your suffering and the people who cause it, and your God. The way of love is the way to make suffering slightly more bearable and infinitely more useful when it inevitably happens.

 

 

Excellent. 

 

:bravo:

 

I, personally, found this post to be sub-par. Good day to you, sir.

 

(I totally couldn't have worded it better if you paid me, so please note the sarcasm)

[CatholicsAreKewl]

In short: suffering is only as worthless and horrible as you want to make it be. If you want to deny that it has value, then you will probably suffer anyway, and you will become bitter and hate your suffering and the people who cause it, and your God. The way of love is the way to make suffering slightly more bearable and infinitely more useful when it inevitably happens.

 

I agree with this. However, the argument seems to apply to white people problems. It makes far less sense when we think of children who are starve to death before they can gain anything from their suffering. Jesus endured a lot more than most of us ever will. I think it's a stretch to say he suffered more than any human in history. 

[arfink]

I agree with this. However, the argument seems to apply to white people problems. It makes far less sense when we think of children who are starve to death before they can gain anything from their suffering. Jesus endured a lot more than most of us ever will. I think it's a stretch to say he suffered more than any human in history. 

 

I don't think that's true, because God's suffering does not merely include Jesus' earthly suffering. Every created being's pain is also God's pain, for he holds all creation in existence at every moment by the power of his will. He knows every last bit suffering, intimately.

Also, how can we know that these starving children are too young to gain anything from their suffering? Are we to assume that because they are poor and starving that they will be deprived of their eternal reward? I think it's much more likely for "white people problems" to be the ones which do not gain anything from the suffering, because we have ways of medicating it out of our lives and ignoring it.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I don't think that's true, because God's suffering does not merely include Jesus' earthly suffering. Every created being's pain is also God's pain, for he holds all creation in existence at every moment by the power of his will. He knows every last bit suffering, intimately.

Also, how can we know that these starving children are too young to gain anything from their suffering? Are we to assume that because they are poor and starving that they will be deprived of their eternal reward? I think it's much more likely for "white people problems" to be the ones which do not gain anything from the suffering, because we have ways of medicating it out of our lives and ignoring it.

 

When I say "white people problems", I mean the pain that people with the luxury of internet access and easy access to clean water and food might go through on the day to day. Hardships of this sort make us stronger. Those born into poverty and sickness with a low life expectancy don't seem to fit your argument as well. Are you willing to say that non-Christians who spend their lives suffering are going to receive heavenly reward?

Edited June 18, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Maggyie]

You rather misunderstand the nature of God's will and activity, which is radically different from the will and activity of human beings.

 

You say God stands at the sidelines as children suffer, but that is hardly true. No suffering is wasted, it is united with God's own suffering. Besides, much, if not all of the suffering in the world is not the result of God's uncaring inactivity, but because He must respect human free will. When humans harm each other, they are acting on their free will. And while it is terrible that anyone would suffer, this suffering can have a distinct and redemptive purpose.

 

 

The poll answers are foolish. I am not an atheist (duh) but I do struggle with the problem of evil lately. It used to be academic to me but now that I've experienced capital s Suffering, I feel it is almost an unsolvable problem, unsolvable from a human POV anyway. The free will argument works well when it comes to murder or arson or abuse or other carpy things humans do to each other...

 

... but say a child dies in an earthquake. That's not a result of God needing to respect our free will, it's just crazy nature being crazy. So God could theoretically reach in and say "stop being crazy nature!!!" and the tornado would stop turning right? Well we all know that's not how it works. But isn't that how it should work? He isn't forcing the barometric pressure to love him or violating its free will ya know.

 

What about those people who survive the twister and say "Thank God that He heard our prayers!" does that mean He didn't hear the prayers of the people who died? Or are the survivors sort of engaging in wishful thinking, and God was not involved in saving/not saving? Permissive will vs. active will?

 

It's true suffering can be transforming and redemptive - but couldn't the almighty God have found a way to accomplish these sames ends without "allowing" the suffering? And if He could, why doesn't he? His personal preference? Ok now I'm just being bitter and lippy.

 

I realize these are all questions without answers, or rather only one answer - the cross. But even the cross doesn't provide a specific response to all these queries, just "I know what you're going through, it's a mystery, believe that I love you."

[arfink]

When I say "white people problems", I mean the pain that people with the luxury of internet access and easy access to clean water and food might go through on the day to day. Hardships of this sort make us stronger. Those born into poverty and sickness with a low life expectancy don't seem to fit your argument as well. Are you willing to say that non-Christians who spend their lives suffering are going to receive heavenly reward?

 

Yes, although not by virtue of their non-Christian-ness, or by virtue of their suffering by itself, but according to the same kind of desire that Christians have, to do what is best by God and their fellow man, and live by their conscience.