Aggravating is it not ?

Originally posted by whodey
So according to the Bible, when did sufering and death enter the world? Was it not when sin entered the world? As a Christian I have no problem admitting that those without sin or the innocent suffer simply because they live in a world that has sin in it. Christ is a prime example of this.

I have no problem admitting that those without sin or the innocent suffer simply because they live in a world that has sin in it.

Why not? You haven't provided any reasons that would justify why God would allow such instances of suffering; or why such instances of suffering would in any way be necessary for his ultimate plans for humanity or in any way necessary for the greater good. I don't care what kind of bizarre connection you think exists between sin and the suffering of, say, the neonate. The fact remains that there is no justifiable reason why this neonate would deserve to suffer for the sins of its forbears, and God could simply disallow the suffering of this neonate. The neonate doesn't have the capacity to sin or reject God or be morally culpable for anything.

Originally posted by whodey
It most certainly is NOT nonsensical. It is just as sensical as saying that God did not create darkness or cold. What is darkness and cold? Is it not merely a description of a lack of heat or light? Ironically, the world of sin is also referred to as "darkness". In and of itself, darkness does not exist because there is nothing there to measure. All one ove of God in their hearts. It is nothing that God created because it was never there......

You are mistaken if you think suffering is merely the privation of good. Suffering is something real that hurts, and merely having absence of good is not in itself sufficient for suffering. Or, for example, think of pain, which can manifest as suffering. Pain is its own type of conscious state and is not merely the absence of, say, pleasure. Further, even if suffering and pain and these types of things were privations, that wouldn't make them any less morally considerable. God would still have obligation within his abilities to avoid such privations where they are not necessary.

Originally posted by whodey
Sin creats suffering. How is that so hard to fathom? What you are really saying is, suffering should only happen to those "worthy" to recieve such suffering, however, as with most destructive forces such as a bomb or hurricane, it matters little who gets in the way.

If God is omnipotent, then he has the ability to prevent those persons who wouldn't deserve to suffer from suffering. Even if a bomb went off in the middle of a crowd, he would have the ability to shield any and all of the persons in the crowd from harm.

Originally posted by whodey
It most certainly is NOT nonsensical. It is just as sensical as saying that God did not create darkness or cold. What is darkness and cold? Is it not merely a description of a lack of heat or light? Ironically, the world of sin is also referred to as "darkness". In and of itself, darkness does not exist because there is nothing there to measure. All one ...[text shortened]... ove of God in their hearts. It is nothing that God created because it was never there......

You seem to have tunnel vision here. It seems your belief is that an omnipotent being could not create a universe without darkness and cold. An omnipotent being is responsible for everything in the universe. I'm not sure why you seem to struggle with this concept.

Originally posted by whodey
Sin creats suffering. How is that so hard to fathom? What you are really saying is, suffering should only happen to those "worthy" to recieve such suffering, however, as with most destructive forces such as a bomb or hurricane, it matters little who gets in the way.

Please reread my post. Why are you putting words in my mouth? What I'm saying is that the suffering from cancer is not necessary for free will. Or are you saying that an omnipotent being would have been incapable of creating a universe without cancer?

Ask your self if a truly omnibenevolent being would create a universe with cancer? I can see how you might be able to make a case that with sin man's inhumanity to man creates suffering. But suffering caused by things other than man's inhumanity to man doesn't make any sense for an omnibenevolent being. Have you really thought about what omnibenevolent really means?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I have no problem admitting that those without sin or the innocent suffer simply because they live in a world that has sin in it.

Why not? You haven't provided any reasons that would justify why God would allow such instances of suffering; or why such instances of suffering would in any way be necessary for his ultimate plans for humanity or in ...[text shortened]... e neonate doesn't have the capacity to sin or reject God or be morally culpable for anything.[/b]

Take Christ for example, He came into the world without sin, yet he was a man of sorrows and eventually was tortured to death. Now could Christ have nteracted with "sinners" without feeling the effects of their sins? It is like living in a firing range with the hopes of not getting shot. Now could God surround the "innocent" with some sort of impermeable bubble so that the ill effects could not be felt? I suppose he could but then again, why even have them living with the "sinners" in the first place?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seem to have tunnel vision here. It seems your belief is that an omnipotent being could not create a universe without darkness and cold. An omnipotent being is responsible for everything in the universe. I'm not sure why you seem to struggle with this concept.

What I am saying is that apart from Creation all that is there would be is darkness and cold. In other words, there would not be anything there at all.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Please reread my post. Why are you putting words in my mouth? What I'm saying is that the suffering from cancer is not necessary for free will. Or are you saying that an omnipotent being would have been incapable of creating a universe without cancer?

Ask your self if a truly omnibenevolent being would create a universe with cancer? I can see how you m ...[text shortened]... for an omnibenevolent being. Have you really thought about what omnibenevolent really means?

In other words, he should allow suffering due to sin except for some forms of suffering like cancer that we find distastfull? I think you will find that God finds sin as distastfull if not more so than the actual cancer. Illness is merely a symptom of the sinfulness in our lives. As the body deteriorates, which must be because we are sinners and now must die, we will see all the effects of this deterioration in a variety of forms.

Originally posted by whodey
What I am saying is that apart from Creation all that is there would be is darkness and cold. In other words, there would not be anything there at all.

I understand what you're saying. Try thinking outside the box you seem to have put yourself in. What would prevent an omnipotent being from creating a universe where darkness and cold do not exist?

Originally posted by whodey
In other words, he should allow suffering due to sin except for some forms of suffering like cancer that we find distastfull? I think you will find that God finds sin as distastfull if not more so than the actual cancer. Illness is merely a symptom of the sinfulness in our lives. As the body deteriorates, which must be because we are sinners and now must die, we will see all the effects of this deterioration in a variety of forms.

You seem to confuse your beliefs with what is possible. Once again, try to think outside the box you seem to have put yourself in. What would prevent an omnipotent being from creating a universe that has no suffering other than from man's inhumanity to man?

Originally posted by whodey
Take Christ for example, He came into the world without sin, yet he was a man of sorrows and eventually was tortured to death. Now could Christ have nteracted with "sinners" without feeling the effects of their sins? It is like living in a firing range with the hopes of not getting shot. Now could God surround the "innocent" with some sort of impermeable b ...[text shortened]... he could but then again, why even have them living with the "sinners" in the first place?

You don't seem to be addressing my actual claims in this discussion. My main claim is that there exist instances of suffering in the world that are not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good. For example, consider the neonate that is stricken with painful and fatal illness. Now, if you were to actually maintain that such an instance of suffering is logically necessary for, say, God's ultimate plans for humanity; then you would be committed to the idea that had this neonate not suffered and died, then it would be logically impossible for God to achieve his plans for humanity. I think we can safely agree that this is absurd. Even if this neonate had not suffered, it would still of course be logically possible for God to bring about his ultimate plans (for example, that his creation enter into loving, prosocial relationships with each other and him). But, now given that the neonate's suffering was not necessary for his plans, God should have prevented the suffering. After all, gratuitous suffering is morally relevant and bad, and a beneficent and compassionate person would rather that it not obtain and act accordingly within his abilities. If you think God exists but didn't prevent the unnecessary suffering of the neonate (which was well within his knowledge and power), then it seems you are committed to the idea that God is callous and doesn't take gratuitous suffering to weigh on the issue of moral preferability.

You seem to argue that even things like illness, cancer, climatic disasters, etc, are somehow the product of sin. Further, you argue that sin is a natural byproduct of free will and, in turn, that free will is a principal good and one that is necessary for God's ultimate plans of love.

However, whatever this bizarre and circuitous connection between, say, the sins of its forbears and the illness of the neonate is, it's clear that it cannot be a connection regarding logical necessity. After all, sin of course does not logically entail that persons get cancer or painful illnesses or that hurricanes rip through villages, etc. Sin only entails that moral agents transgress against God's will. So, even if somehow you are right and the suffering of the neonate is related to sin, then it would at best be some sort of circuitous nomological connection. But God is omnipotent and he can contravene what is merely nomological; so he could still simply prevent these unfortunate effects of sin. For example, in the case of the neonate, God would know that it's not fair for sin to somehow cause the suffering of this neonate because there is no way the neonate could possibly deserve to suffer for the sins of its forbears. So, God should simply prevent the neonate from suffering. Again, if you think that God exists but didn't prevent the suffering of the neonate, you are committed to the idea that God is callous.

I think this is all being very generous to your position because, in reality, there is virtually no reading upon which it makes any sense to think that sin has non-ersatz connection to hurricanes and cancers and other unfortunate aspects of the natural lottery.

Originally posted by LemonJello
You don't seem to be addressing my actual claims in this discussion. My main claim is that there exist instances of suffering in the world that are not logically necessary for the bringing about of greater good. For example, consider the neonate that is stricken with painful and fatal illness. Now, if you were to actually maintain that such an instance ection to hurricanes and cancers and other unfortunate aspects of the natural lottery.

Of course, why "innocent" people suffer is a rather complex state of affairs that I don't think is easily asnwered, but I will give it a try from the way I perceive things. There is no question in my mind that on one would have ever suffered had sin not entered the world, however, once it did all bets are off. At this point, when sin entered the world, you have a complex set if issues and it all revolves aournd, you guessed it, free will.

How does God interact and intervene on our behalf or on the behalf of the neonate? No matter whether the neonate suffers or not due to sin, it has still been comdemned to die eventually because it was born into sin. Iti s because God had forwarned Adam and Eve of the consequences of their actions. If you sin, you die. Then once this occured, there was little God could do to change this fact and liek it or not those who came from them are still apart of them in some way and will take part in their curse. Now comes other issues within this context such as temperal suffering, other than those revolving about our eventual demise, that perhaps God can intervene. For example, God could save us from cancer or the neonate from another illness before he decides to allow us to die. From what I can ascertain Biblically, God desires our faith to be intermingled with his intervention. You see, faith is nothing more than someone aligning their will to that of God's will. In effect, it gives God the "OK" to intervene rather than to let man do as he pleases apart from God. You see, if man desires to live their life apart from God, no problem, he will step aside and let you do your best without him. Again, it all comes back to free will. But then it gets even more complicated. For example, Christ prayed earnestly to the Father that he should be spared from the cross if at all possible, yet his prayer went unanswered. You see, if you align your will with his own, you may not always get your way, in fact, you might as well take that as a gaurantee. Even though it made no real sense at the time, his suffering and eventual death was necessary as made evident by Christian teachings. So the $64 question is does the death or suffering of the neonate have to do with God's utlimate plan or does God want to intervene but is impeded by the lack of faith in and around that situation? For example, does God require the consent of others even though the neonate is incapable of consenting itself or must it die to fulfill some purpose that we are unaware?

I would continue but I think I am giving myself a headache. I would just conclude by saying it is a complex set of issues because free will is a complex phenomenon that is far beyond our ability to fully comprehend it in terms of the implications surrounding it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seem to confuse your beliefs with what is possible. Once again, try to think outside the box you seem to have put yourself in. What would prevent an omnipotent being from creating a universe that has no suffering other than from man's inhumanity to man?

I assume you are aware that my position is that it is God's desire that we have free will. Assuming you agree, the question then becomes, could he still give us free will but disallow us to sin? What you are really saying in this case is that we have free will to do anything other than reject God and his love in our hearts. However, that is not what a God of love is looking for in terms of a relationship with us. The whole purpose of Creation from God's perspective was to interact with us in a loving way and in order to do that, we MUST have the ability to reject him or embrace him. Free will was not given to us so that we could merely decide what food to eat or cloths to wear etc.. Now it has been argued that God could still give us free will but disallow those who would sin to ever exist. I simply content that this to be an impossibility or I think he would have done it. Only God knows the answer.

Now if you disagree that free will is the desire of God for us in our lives then why do we have it? Of course, there be those who deny that we have free will at all, however, it is an odd thing when we then get bent all out of shape when we percieve it to be violated when it actually does not exist in the fist place.

Originally posted by whodey
I assume you are aware that my position is that it is God's desire that we have free will. Assuming you agree, the question then becomes, could he still give us free will but disallow us to sin? What you are really saying in this case is that we have free will to do anything other than reject God and his love in our hearts. However, that is not what a God of shape when we percieve it to be violated when it actually does not exist in the fist place.

I assume you are aware that this doesn't answer my question. Do you bother to read the posts of others before getting up on your soap box to state your position? I'm pretty sure I understand your position already.

Like I said in my original post:
"I've skimmed some of this, but so far as I can tell there is at least one situation that has yet to be dealt with in a straightforward manner by any of the Christians. They seem to dance around it.

If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, such a God would create a universe where there is no possibility of suffering. I haven't seen anyone give a rational explanation how a God that has all three of these characteristics wouldn't create such a universe. Now if God was lacking in anyone of these characteristics, then a universe that has suffering might make sense."

Seriously, how about trying to deal with this in a straightforward manner? Is it really asking too much?

Originally posted by whodey
The whole purpose of Creation from God's perspective was to interact with us in a loving way and in order to do that, we MUST have the ability to reject him or embrace him.

The obvious extension to that argument is that since nobody in their right mind and fully availed of the facts would ever reject him (thus contradicting the requirement that we MUST be able to), therefore it was necessary for God to either make us mentally deficient in our decision making process or not avail us of all the facts.
What I cant see is how that can be interpreted as a 'loving relationship' from either side.