God and Suffering

by AK - Jeff 322 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AK - Jeff

  I agree, ATJ. The premise is faulty. If defenders of God refuse to address the matter of premise, well then the treadmill we have been on here for 13 pages seems inevitable, doesn't it?

  If we accept the premise, literally, that Adam and Eve were created by God from a lump of clay and a borrowed rib, then seduced in a garden by an evil snake to eat an apple, then and only then, can we have 'original sin' as defined by most bible believers, right?

  If we accept that the Genesis account is allegory or figurative in some way, then where is 'original sin'?

  Without clear definition of 'original sin' doesn't Christian theology fall before it begins? So those who attempt to excuse the fairytale nature of Genesis by that means put themselves on a precarious perch to begin with. Right?

  Yet, when the fairytale beginning of Christianity is challenged, it is defended in just that manner quite often. To do so however is to risk admission that the whole book starts off with a gigantic lie. I believe this to be an difficult position for believers to defend. It becomes even more convoluted as we move thru the pages of the NT and find Pauline reference to it repeatedly that tie it to the 'legal' resolution in Jesus' sacrifice.

  Perry keeps insisting that I just don't 'get it'. I believe I 'get it' all too well.

  BTS - you are somewhat on the right track regarding my 'anger with God'. I suppose there is some of that. But not much anymore. I am more frustrated that supposed 'spiritual' people can continue to excuse God [even though I believe him to be fictional], and to ignore the massive intellectual dishonesty presented in the Bible, while defending him.

  Jeff
• 

  Perry

  I agree, ATJ. The premise is faulty. If defenders of God refuse to address the matter of premise, well then the treadmill we have been on here for 13 pages seems inevitable, doesn't it?

  What premise are you talking about? I immediately attacked your "Have you stopped beating your wife" premise, in your opening assumption - Why does God poison his children.

  If we accept the premise, literally, that Adam and Eve were created by God from a lump of clay and a borrowed rib, then seduced in a garden by an evil snake to eat an apple, then and only then, can we have 'original sin' as defined by most bible believers, right?

  Can you show where this premise has been used in this thread? This is a red-herring.

  If we accept that the Genesis account is allegory or figurative in some way, then where is 'original sin'?

  Without clear definition of 'original sin' doesn't Christian theology fall before it begins? So those who attempt to excuse the fairytale nature of Genesis by that means put themselves on a precarious perch to begin with. Right?

  Are you on the same thread as everyone else? Why bring Adam into the picture? What about YOUR sin Jeff? What about my sin? It is not necessary to invoke Adam or the Genesis account to examine that is it? I cannot measure Adam, but each can measure his or herself.

  Yet, when the fairytale beginning of Christianity is challenged, it is defended in just that manner quite often.

  And quite often, like on this thread, simple logic is employed, which you are going to great lenghts to avoid.

  To do so however is to risk admission that the whole book starts off with a gigantic lie. I believe this to be an difficult position for believers to defend. It becomes even more convoluted as we move thru the pages of the NT and find Pauline reference to it repeatedly that tie it to the 'legal' resolution in Jesus' sacrifice.

  Again, Genesis, Adam, Zeus, FSM aside what is it that you don't yet understand about the clear evidence of a moral creature such as ourselves that can imagine true morality, but cannot do...and how he might be astranged from a just and perfectly moral God? What is illogical about that? You can ignore the question all you want. But the fact remains that the evidence shows that is a perfectly logical explanation of how God (in the general definition of the term) and Suffering can both exist.

  If you have some criticism against that intrinsic logic.....let's hear it. Honestly, what is so wrong in admitting that it is not illogical but you simply chose to not accept it on other grounds? Why stick so dogedly to a premise that is so easily demonstrated to be false...even without the bible?

  I guess what I am attacking in your argument is not you or even your personal choices, but more your false premise (God poisons his children) and the false conclusion from that premise that those who support such a God are equally reprehensible.

  Your charge is essentially "Have you stopped beating your wife". And my rebuttal is essentially "I'm not married".

  So to throw the ball back in your court; What is it specifically about yourself, that would bring you to the conclusion that you are descended from a perfectly moral God and thus justify your premise that you are his child?

  Justify your claim as heir of the Almighty.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Perry, God IGNORES HIS CHILDREN TODAY!

  In the bible, God CLEARLY BEATS HIS CHILDREN!

  Lets get that out of the way.

  Why bring Adam into the picture? What about YOUR sin Jeff? What about my sin? It is not necessary to invoke Adam or the Genesis account to examine that is it? I cannot measure Adam, but each can measure his or herself.

  What? Perry, if Adam didn't "sin", would "Jesus" need to die for our since in order to be reconciled to god?

  NO!

  Premise = False. What are you talking about 'Why bring Adam into it?' Because if you don't believe in original sin, then the whole need for Jesus sacrifice as the old ancient book the bible describes, is not necessary. You do remember saying this to me and asking me to "prove" it.

  Just the God and Suffering Reconciliation part ATJ

  Show me the illogic.

  What you don't get is that I AM NOT A SINNER AND I AM NOT SEPARATED FROM GOD AND THUS NOT IN NEED OF JESUS SACRIFICE OR RECONCILIATION TO GOD. I BASE THIS ON THE FACT THAT THE GENESIS ACCOUNT IS FICTION. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

  You are moving from A to B to C without properly engaging in any substantive conversation, JW style. How can you be taken seriously?
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  For the one who wants to know why Adam and Eve were introduced here:

  Okay, I only know the definitions from JW training. It seems to me that Christianity says that Jesus died for our sins. We are born into sin because of Adam and Eve eating the fruit. We need to apply Jesus' sacrifice to our sins in order to be in good standing with God. Is that about right?

  We suffer because we are on our own without God because that same sin was a decision to self-rule without God's guidance. Is that about right?

  Christians suffer with others because of that same man-rule. God doesn't step in at all and prevent earthquakes, starvation, plane crashes, etc. Is that about right?

  From what I understand of this thread, Perry says you have to accept the God of the Bible in order to question His allowing suffering. If you don't accept Him, you cannot use the allowing of suffering as a reason not to accept Him. Is that about right? So He allows the suffering for the reasons stated above and you cannot blame Him OR you reject Him and you cannot blame Him. Is that about right?

  INSTEAD, some are saying that such a firm stand is silly and similar to WTS logic circles. We can say, "I would like to believe in Him but I cannot reconcile how 6 month olds' suffering and death is part of a loving God."

  Some are able to further state that they reject the idea of us being born into sin. Religion defines sin (often as coming from Adam and Eve) and creates an excuse for God doing nothing so that they can continue to insist that we obey God. Some are able to stop blaming God by realizing that He isn't there to cause or prevent the suffering. They are ready to move on from the circles above.
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  To Non Believers

  The anger that some non believers have express on this most enlightening thread comes through very strongly. You choose to get involved in hypothetical arguments about the rights and wrongs of God’s alleged actions, even though you do not believe in God. I have done the same over many years on this forum in my real name.

  You know the scenario is not real yet your mind feels genuine emotion, the same as watching a fictitious film can move you. Once the anger has become a real emotion it needs a real live target to vent itself on. God will not do because you do not believe he exists, so the beliefs of those who do believe in a God must be squashed for the anger to be spent. This is a false hope.

  The anger comes from the difficulty of accepting that we are alone in the universe and will one day die. Once we were young, believed in a God and had parents. Our parents pass away and we see through the invention of a heavenly father and face old age and death. There is a feeling of abandonment and hopelessness which turns to anger.

  We feel anger towards believers because they do not accept their mortality and can offer us no comfort or solace, so the feeling of abandonment returns. They have avoided the painful processes of facing up to reality, believing their ego will survive for eternity. While we look for a way to cope that does not involve inventing an invisible friend, they support and worship a friend that we do not believe exists. We are affronted that they can talk of love for a creature that we perceive as a monster. We ask - where is their humanity?

  The solution is to accept and embrace the peace and stillness that comes from knowing that we can live without feeling threatened or blessed. We can enjoy the relief that we are not living in the shadow of a monster in the sky that holds all the cards and is impossible to please. Acceptance that our troubled existence on this wonderful yet hostile planet is temporary and unimportant can bring great inner peace. There is no need for anger, no need for regrets. We have done the best we can and it was good enough. Who says so? We do and we need no further validation. We do not need to thank or be thanked. We do not need saving or redeeming; punishing or apologising for; blessing or rewarding. We are just fine as we are.

  Some people are unable to walk through this world without crutches. They are to be pitied not envied. They will never know the joy of walking, upright and free until they throw away their crutches. Their delusion robs them of ever being in contact with the true reality of their existence. It is absurd to expect delude people to recognise that they are deluded. It is the nature of delusion that the victim is always unaware of their plight.

  To believers

  I realise that you believe I am delude so pasting my last paragraph and telling me I have described myself will not do. No cigar! May your imaginary God bless you and protect you from non-believers.
• 

  leavingwt

  THE GLADIATOR:

  The solution is to accept and embrace the peace and stillness that comes from knowing that we can live without feeling threatened or blessed. We can enjoy the relief that we are not living in the shadow of a monster in the sky that holds all the cards and is impossible to please. Acceptance that our troubled existence on this wonderful yet hostile planet is temporary and unimportant can bring great inner peace. There is no need for anger, no need for regrets. We have done the best we can and it was good enough. Who says so? We do and we need no further validation. We do not need to thank or be thanked. We do not need saving or redeeming; punishing or apologising for; blessing or rewarding. We are just fine as we are.

  Beautiful and encouraging!! Thank you.

  -LWT
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  For those who won't read the entire post by THE GLADIATOR (hey, I don' always read long posts, it's okay) I post the part that I particularly was moved by:

  The solution is to accept and embrace the peace and stillness that comes from knowing that we can live without feeling threatened or blessed. We can enjoy the relief that we are not living in the shadow of a monster in the sky that holds all the cards and is impossible to please. Acceptance that our troubled existence on this wonderful yet hostile planet is temporary and unimportant can bring great inner peace. There is no need for anger, no need for regrets. We have done the best we can and it was good enough. Who says so? We do and we need no further validation. We do not need to thank or be thanked. We do not need saving or redeeming; punishing or apologising for; blessing or rewarding. We are just fine as we are.

  Edited to add: Oh, I didn't even finish reading beyond that post to see that LWT already posted it. Well, repetition for emphasis.
• 

  hamilcarr

  Some people are unable to walk through this world without crutches.

  Unfortunately, the recovery takes so long. My upper thigh muscles still hurt.
• 

  PSacramento

  I think it boils down to an issue of:

  Do we beleive that God ( if he Exists) allows suffering?

  For that we have to assume that God CAN do something about suffering and that it would be the right thing to do.

  I know that as a Father the last thing I want is my kids to suffer and I would do ANYTHINg to keep them from suffering, UNLESS they are doing something that they SHOULD suffer for.

  Bare with me, I tell my little NOT to jump up and down on the chair, I tell her she will fall off and hurt herself, she doesn't listen, I take her off the chair, she goes back and does the samething. So I let her fall and she hurts herfel and she learns and she suffers and I feel like a very bad father for letting my little one suffer, BUT she learns.

  Now, this is not a perfect example and it may not even be a good one, but it is an example of how, as parents, we sometimes allow for suffering.

  Does this justify OUR preceived view of a neglectful God?

  No.
• 

  superpunk

  But that isn't the whole God story, Psac - unless you are discounting any sort of creation theory whatsoever.

  In almost all Christian theology - we became disconnected from God somehow, right? (If you have a different theory nevermind - Christians have a wide variance of opinion on their core doctrines, and they don't appear to be the least bit ashamed about it)

  In the theology where humans commit an act of independence, and thus separate from the Lord, the warning is always given in a punitive sense. So you have to fix it to where you tell your daughter - "If you jump on the chair, I will hurt you." Even if jumping on the chair, in and of itself, would not hurt the child.

  I realize there are a great many progressive Christians who think God just kind of put the ingredients in his science kit and then POOF! is watching it all play out as sort of an indifferent, hand-wringing observer of the human condition - but that is not Bible-God, and it certainly doesn't seem like a creature worth worshipping, anymore than a so-called "Sperm-donor" father who then abandons his wife and offspring is a Father worth loving.