how can a good God create a world iwhere there is suffering

[Guest]

Thanks, JC. Any online resources [concerning Gregory Boyd] I could get my hands on?

Here's a site that has a lot of information on open theism (which Gregory Boys espouses). It tells you where you can get books. I think you can download some of the dissertations, too.

http://www.opentheism.info/

[Guest]

Hi Derek,

As I said, I think the point I'm making is largely semantical... really more for emphasis than anything else. But it's a point of clarity I wanted to make for Asimov's benefit.

If I understand Asimov correctly, he is taking the position that, given an all-powerful creator, everything must be happening the way that creator wants it to.

In once sense, I agree with Asimov on this. It seems to me that God has subjegated even some of His own preferences (His will) in order that man might have power to make independent choices.

But my point is, that this very subjegation of His will was, itself, something that He wanted to do, so that, perhaps in a larger sense, we can say that things are still operating within His larger preference.

I'm probably not saying this very well.

Perry

[Guest]

I'm probably not saying this very well.

Perry

No, you're saying it perfectly fine. I hope you note the contradiction, though. That if humans are exercising their free will, they are doing exactly what God wants them to do...which is exercise their free will.

I'm not sure what sort of concept of hell any of you ascribe to, though, so I'll stop there.

[Guest]

I don't have time to read such a large post, but I think this is the core of the issue (correct me if I'm wrong), so I will focus on this, and I'm strictly operating on an assumption that the Christian Bible is true.

1) You state in the bolded part that the source of suffering is all human beings. You then state in the next bolded area that the source of suffering is sin. This appears to be inconsistent. If Sin is the source of suffering, and Humans are the source of suffering, then are you saying that we can equate and interchange humans with sin?

Sinners are the source of sin, and sin is the source of suffering. All human beings are sinners therefore there are two alternatives. a) Change human beings so that they are not sinners, or b) destroy them.

2) You stated that in order to destroy suffering, God would have to destroy humans...why?

Because human beings cause suffering by sinning. Sin is the source of suffering, and sin is a behaviour of sinners.

For example, stealing is a sin, the source of it is the theif.

To stop stealing therefore, you need to get rid of the theif. You can do that by literally getting rid of the theif [destroying him] or reforming the theif so he stops stealing. The theif has the option therefore to reform [that is, to repent which means to turn away from a life of stealing] or if s/he will not, then the only option is to destroy the theif. Otherwise, if where-ever the theif is, stealing will continue. This same principle applies to all other sins.

3)
A. God loves humans.
B. All humans are the source of suffering.
C. God wants to destroy suffering.
D. God can't destroy suffering without destroying humans.
E. God IS going to destroy suffering.

Conclusion: God IS going to destroy all humans.

F. God does not want to destroy all humans (from A).
G. God has come up with a way to destroy suffering without destroying humans (as per his omnipotence).

You said:
Conclusion 2: God does not have to destroy all humans in order to destroy suffering.

So, where's the problem? If God can get rid of suffering (his omnipotence) without destroying anyone (his love for humans) then no human should necessarily have to be destroyed. To suggest that he can't get rid of suffering without destroying humans is inconsistent with his omnipotence.

To get rid of suffering he must get rid of sin. Sin comes from sinners. To allow sinners who did not want to stop being sinners to go into a perfect world and thereby destroy its perfection by continuing to sin, he would not be good. God is omnipotent, omnipresent AND all-good.

[Guest]

Sinners are the source of sin, and sin is the source of suffering....To get rid of suffering he must get rid of sin. Sin comes from sinners. To allow sinners who did not want to stop being sinners to go into a perfect world and thereby destroy its perfection by continuing to sin, he would not be good.

I would not go as far as to make this a blanket statement. Sin contributes to suffering, but not everything we consider suffering is because of sin. I may consider it "suffering" to go through a trial in my life, but that trial may be from God to teach me something and increase my faith. It may not be a punishment at all. In an earlier post, I made a similar statement to yours, but I stated that to get rid of *all* suffering you would have to get rid of sin and our ability to choose it. When you boil it down, "suffering" is an emotional/psychological response to things not going the way we want them to. We are in a state of distress. As such, we could feel that way about anything no matter if it was based upon sin or not.
D.

[Guest]

dbuddridge,

Your header question implies (though veiled) that God is not good. If God were all good by any definition people normaly understand "good" to mean, then He would not have allowed evil to occur in the first place.
Bob

Would God be good if he denied the chance to live to [say] Martin Luther King just so that [say] Joseph Stalin did not have to die.

Of course, nobody has to die - the offer of forgiveness through Jesus is available to all including the Joseph Stalin's of this world. But just because Joseph Stalin made the wrong choice - would it be right on that basis to deny the Martin Luther Kings, and the Mother Terressa's of this world the chance to have life? Would a good God who saw us before the creation of the world and loved us even then, be Good if he did not let those who would choose him have a life?

Also, the question implies that this life is all there is. Certainly if this life is all there is, then the suffering is not worth it. But the Christian world-view says that there will come a day when the world will be made so fantastically perfect that the sufferings before it will seem barely worth mentioning.

Furthermore, given the lengths that the Christian God has shown himself willing to go to in order to avoid punishing the guilty, do you really think he would punish those who really are innocent? [Babies, unborn, those intellectually unable to make choices]?

[Guest]

Sinners are the source of sin, and sin is the source of suffering....To get rid of suffering he must get rid of sin. Sin comes from sinners. To allow sinners who did not want to stop being sinners to go into a perfect world and thereby destroy its perfection by continuing to sin, he would not be good.

I would not go as far as to make this a blanket statement. Sin contributes to suffering, but not everything we consider suffering is because of sin.

Even events that are not obviously caused by human activity [earth-quakes, tornado's, volcano erruptions etc] according to the theology of Christianity are still ultimately a side-effect of sin being in the world. The theological proposition is that when Adam/Eve sinned, they broke something fundamental about the creation so that it no longer worked properly.


Prior to the fall these things did not occur. After the fall the creation itself was broken and began doing things that cause suffering. But the root of the problem is the sin that is in the world.

I may consider it "suffering" to go through a trial in my life, but that trial may be from God to teach me something and increase my faith.

That there is suffering at all in this world is [according to the Christian view] because of the original sin of Adam/Eve. Given that sin exists however, It says in the bible that God works all things for the good of those who love him. I take this to mean that God uses the bad events that are caused by sin to do [ultimate] good for those who love him. But it does not mean that the suffering is any less caused by sin.

If there was no sin in the world, there would be no suffering [that's the Christian theological position as I understand it].

[Guest]

I pray that this would be a blessing to those who watch:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WT_WUOyud4


In Christ,

Haas

[Guest]

I pray that this would be a blessing to those who watch:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WT_WUOyud4


In Christ,

Haas

Hass,
It was very touching, and I praise God that this man is saved! However, his theological points in regards to reform theology have the same validity whether he is disabled or not. Do you agree?

I stand convinced that he is wrong in his views of Gods election, but I am sure he is a Godly man, and for this I rejoice in his salvation.

Robin

[Guest]

I stand convinced that he is wrong in his views of Gods election, but I am sure he is a Godly man, and for this I rejoice in his salvation.

Praise God! We are rejoicing together.

In Christ,

Haas