Big Brother Val said:Just as with God... I see all of these children suffering... there are children who are cold and hungry... there are children who are beaten... there are children who are stolen and murdered... then for God to expect us to believe in him despite the evil... I just don't know how he can ask that of us. It seems very hypocritical. How can I view such a neglectful God as my eternal father?
Thank you all for taking the time to write. What you post does make sense to me... but I still can't understand how God... whatever he is... can expect us to believe based on a book that was written before we were born. And if we don't believe, we may not be saved, because we didn't believe in him...
Well if he is so understanding and merciful.. wouldn't he understand WHY it's hard to believe?
How can a father let his children suffer? He could stop it any time, of any day... and decides not to. [/B]
I did not write this but thought it might help.
"
Why, if there is a loving God, does He not intervene and stop the bad actions of bad men? Certainly the innocent should not have to suffer at the hands of those who are evil? Where is the justice in that?
To begin with, we need to look at what the humanist is demanding. In order to fulfill this obligation God would have to intervene all the time, and thus alter the laws of nature: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when used as a weapon, or a knife blade became putty in the hands of an aggressor, or the bullet of the assassin disintegrated in mid-flight. It would be impossible to imagine a world like this. Life would be a mass of confusion, as there would be no longer any rules which we would be held accountable to. Like the chess game, the fact that there are rules and consequences to our actions gives the game its relevance and makes it worth playing.
In order to create persons with free will there had to be a predictable universe, which included both evil and good. Thus the possibility of evil is inherent in the very existence of freedom. Yet because of man's rebellion one of the inescapable consequences of this was suffering, whether mental or physical, whether self-inflicted or by another. While we love freedom, we tend not to like the consequences which go with it; yet we cannot have one without the other. "
Here is another tidbit. This is not necessarily aimed at you Big Brother Val.
The question constantly asked by non-Christians is:
"How can a God of love let all this suffering go on in his world? Either he doesn't exist at all or he is a vicious tyrant who enjoys seeing people in pain."
Before I attempt to answer this question, I think it helpful to turn the question around so those who are asking can see that the premise which they take is equally illogical. If we assume that God does not exist because there is evil in the world, then how are we going to explain that there is joy and happiness as well? Who are we going to blame that on? Does that then prove God's existence? Of course not. It points out the fact that suffering can not be explained so simply, and that the whole reality of suffering is much more complex than simply blaming it all on God, as so many people are prone to do.
The fact is that there is simply no slick or easy answer to the problem of suffering. It might be helpful to ask those who decry God's existence to explain why they believe there is suffering. They would be the first to admit that the blame rests on none other than ourselves, a view which ironically is close to our own. It is from this premise then that we should start the discussion. Because, while the humanists like to think they have disproved God because of the suffering we find in the world, they fail to understand that the very existence of suffering presupposes the existence of goodness and happiness as well, yet whose source, I feel, only we who believe in the existence of God can adequately explain and offer to the world. Let's then take the questions one by one."
"