Christians: when you say that God loves humanity, what exactly do you mean?

Great Debates
81

Here is my take on this. God is able and often takes people out of their suffering though we can not see it. He lessens it on the person going through it. In scriptures there is a great deal of some people experiencing things that others do not and a lot of suffering that a person should have experienced that God shielded them from.

In this case God sent His daughter into this world, the powers of this world (AKA Satan), went to destroy her. God did allow it in this case, but IMHO providing her with needed protection from torment during that time, and in the end world forces could not have her give up on Love and hope as we see her hugging the stuffed animal. It is very possible that God could have created a real soul in that animal to comfort her.

Yes her body was destroyed but her soul was freed of this evil place, and God won as she didn’t give up on God.

In Job we can see the battle for God’s children, who will have them, Satan or God. The children that Satan gets are the people who seek to control others, without love in their heart, the ones that torment and kill others as you expressed. The ones that destroy.

Also in Job, who is one who experienced suffering, we see the point of suffering, to show us our error that we would never have learned any other way (Job repented in the end). I believe any suffering God does not block and allows us to experience is only the suffering we need to realize our error, in other words God blocks all unnecessary suffering.

Eventually all that destroy will be destroyed and learn that the choice they made (to be evil) was wrong, and effects of karma (scripturally you reap what you sow) means that eventually they will not be strong enough to stay evil, and have to request that God takes custody over them instead of Satan.

So all children will be saved, it’s just a matter of how long they can resist God and stay evil.

But for the little children of God such as this girl IMHO she didn’t suffer what we saw and assumed she did, for if she did God would be a monster, and that’s not the God I worship. My evidence of a good God is her still hugging that bear, her innocence was never taken.

82

This is begging the question - you are presupposing there is an answer to this pain. Now, you are doing this because you (presumably) believe some version of the Bible’s account. So, again, presumably, you have a criteria that would satisfy the burden of proof.

God could still exist, mind you, but that doesn’t necessarily justify any of this. Perhaps God doesn’t care, perhaps God doesn’t have the power, or perhaps God had to cut a deal with the ultimate evil to allow such suffering, or perhaps God is evil (as Stephen Law argues via the problem of the good).

Further, the cancer example is a bad comparison - since the intent is to get the child better. Was the rape and murder intended to get the child better? It’s logically possible that it somehow is, but I cannot see anyway to justify it. I think it’s more probable that there is no justification. It seems borderline ludicrous to me to think there is one just because it’s logically possible that there is one.

Again, I do not believe this justifies the actual suffering. To turn back to the cancer example, if we had it in our power to develop a medicine that did all the same things, yet the child felt no pain, we would certainly do that. In fact, it seems to me to be more moral to give the child the medicine that did not include the pain if possible. Yet, this is exactly the scenario that God is in. God could have created us to ‘turn off’ pain and suffering when there was no hope of survival. In the case of the person ravaged by ebola, God could have made our bodies as such that during the last few days we experienced no pain at all.

In the end, for me, I don’t think that ‘it’s possible there is a reason’ is very good. I think that it’s simply more rational to take it at face value.

83

Plus, let’s suppose God does have a reason.

Why doesn’t he comfort us? To extend this to the father analogy, the child may not understand why the pain is important, but the father is there to hold the child, to comfort the child, and to reassure that the pain is important.

God provides none of this to modern sufferers.

84

The “mysterious ways” defense is no defense at all. Once more, it is logically impossible for God to require suffering, or require any means to any end. Saying I can’t comprehend the necessity misses the point that there can’t logically BE any necessity.

Incidentally, aren’t you also saying that the perpetrator of the crimes against that child was literally doing God’s work? Is that what you mean to say? That’s God showing his love, is it?

85

There are two answers to this. First is that to those with faith in God, your statement is untrue. God IS there to comfort us and reassure us that whatever is happening is part of His plan, and thus important.

The second is that just as we might imagine an immune-compromised child whose father cannot even hold him, there are good reasons that God cannot do this for those that do not believe. Again, you don’t know - can’t - know them.

Every time you ask, “Why doesn’t God…?” the answer can be, “Because of a reason you don’t know, and lack the capacity to even grasp.”

Where were you when God created the world? Tell me, if you have understanding, what were the methods and measurements used? Have you ever, in your life, commanded the morning, and caused the dawn to know its place?

It is not fatal to this model to say, “Why doesn’t God do such-and-so?” because it suggests that you could understand the reasoning of a being such as God.

86

It’s logically impossible for there to be a reason.

87

Irrelevant. Not what the OP is asking. Not going to answer this point. The mere fact that you can’t follow the logic doesn’t mean anything. If the child said, “Logically, there’s no reason to give me chemotherapy,” how convincing a claim would that be?

88

I think you are the one who is not following the logic.

89

Ahh–that phrase “God cannot” strongly suggests to me that you’re not understanding omnipotence in the way that I am. I wonder if you’d elaborate?

90

What do you mean by this? When you say that God IS there to comfort you, are you saying you physically see him? Are you saying you feel him in your gut? I’m not trying to get into a ‘scientific evidence’ argument here - but I’m just not certain what you mean.

It seems to me that people believe that what is occurring is part of God’s plan, but that is different from God being there and reassuring you that it is part of the plan.

Are you suggesting that all believers experience this ‘experience’ of God being there for them when they are in pain? If not, is it because they are not ‘true’ fill-in-the-blanks?

This is where the analogy starts to fray, IMO. Maybe the father can’t physically touch the child - the father can still be seen by the child. The father can still interact with the child. Etc, etc.

I don’t know that there ARE good reasons for those that do not believe - but for now, we can table that discussion.

I still think that this misses the point of unnecessary pain - such as the ebola example. It seems to me that this would be the equivalent of the father giving the child medicine with the intent to hurt the child, with no conceivable benefit to the child, since the child will die as a result of the medicine.

Perhaps, but if so, then it seems rational for me to believe there is no answer. The best I can do is evaluate the situation based on the evidence presented. If ‘I can’t conceive it’ is the best there is, then it seems reasonable for me to believe that:

  1. Either God doesn’t exist.
    or
  2. God doesn’t love us.

You realize that God’s answer to Job was not an actual answer, right?

Further, the book of Job seems to indicate that all was forgiven and Job was ‘made right’ by getting new wives, children, etc.

Which hardly seems a justification for a bet with Satan.

91

Sure. God gives us free will.

If we have free will, then there are some things God cannot do - not as a matter of power, but as a matter of voluntary limitation.

The government has the power to break down your door and search your underwear drawer. We say they cannot, though, as a way of expressing our understanding that the Constitution limits their actions. That does not mean the muscles and the battering rams don’t exist.

92

Of the two choices, I think ‘feel Him in my gut’ is the best answer.

Not at all. I’m sharing what my experience is.

Of course. Given your experience, it IS rational for you to believe there is no answer. My experience is not yours; you’d be foolish to form a conclusion based on my relaying my own subjective experience.

Hardly seems a justification to you.

How many people over the years were convinced, in whole or in part, by reading Job’s story? How many will be in the future? What value do you assign to those people in reaching your conclusion?

93

Okay. Is that–and, of course, a limitation on performing logically impossible tasks–the only limits you ascribe to God’s omnipotence? Or do you allow that there may be other, defined or undefined, limits to God’s power?

The reason I ask is that certain things in the world (the phenomenon of infants born with agonizing, terminal deformities, for example) seem incompatible with the sort of love you ascribe to a God that has the power to prevent those from happening. I can’t see how Free Will explains such phenomena.

Certainly it’s conceivable that there’s an entity who can understand reasons I cannot. But until He enters this thread, I’m talking to you, not Him :). In other words, how is your explanation of God’s love as akin to Fatherly love deal with such phenomena?

94

The Free Will defense fails miserably for reasons I’ve already elaborated. Leaving aside the fact that free will is a logically incoherent impossibility, there is also the fact that God can choose to create only people who will freely choose good. The free will defense is incompatible with God’s omniscience, Furthermore, what’s so fucking important about free will?

95

I did not meant to limit your choices - if that choice is unsatisfactory, I implore you to elaborate on it or change it.

It seems to me that such a response is not quite as convincing as the physical response of an actual father with his child. In other words, out of the two - a father physically there to comfort his child and a feeling in the gut of God comforting you, it seems to me that the father physically being there is superior. Maybe you could argue that they are equal, I suppose.

In either case, this is odd, considering that God is vastly superior to the father in every conceivable way.

It also brings into consideration the problem of even having to make the comparison at all. Surely God would be at the child’s side, comforting him in addition to the biological father, right?

So why do we have to comfort our children at all? Why, when we do comfort them, do they not always say something to the effect of ‘it’s okay daddy, God has assured me that this pain is necessary’?

Okay, so you are unaware of other individual’s experiences, right? They may or may not receive the same treatment that you have experience - you don’t know(I’m not trying to be confrontation here, it just seems to me that this element might now be off the table in our discussion).

Now, you may extend this answer to the following question:

Do all children going through pain/suffering/etc have this experience of God (or a similar one)?

By children, I mean under whatever age of accountability you feel is rational to accept (supposing there is one, of course).

Fair enough.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’d think his original wife and child would agree with me. I’d also like to think that Job was the sort of man who would not be happy with a replacement child - that he would still be devastated by the loss of the original children.

Convinced of what, exactly? There are more explanations of evil in the bible then Job’s account. Further, Job’s account is that we are unable to understand the purpose of suffering, it isn’t an explanation of why there is suffering, per say.

The way I view it is this:

Some people believe in God. Most people believe that evil/suffering/pain are a problem for an omnimax God. The only way out of this problem is to stipulate that there must be a reason for it.

For people who already believe in God, this is enough. For people who don’t, it isn’t.

BTW - thank you for engaging with me - I realize that it’s not easy to be on the ‘hot seat’ even if you have good reasons for your position.

96

None of these questions are relevant to the question the OP asked. I am declining to answer any of them.

97

What do you say to people who feel Krishna in their guts?

This is the standard default for believers who are really challenged to provide evidence that God ever communicates with anybody. “I just know it in my heart.” Not much of an answer, is it? You certainly can’t use it to argue that God has ever communicated with ME, so does that mean God doesn’t love me. Are you going to give me your circular argument that I have to believe first? You’re aware that belief is not volitional, aren’t you? It’s not a choice.

And hasn’t it ever occurred to you that you might be deluding yourself that God is comforting you? How do you know you aren’t? Do the logical problems with your beliefs never give you pause?

It’s not even an attempt justification, period. God does not attempt to justify himself in the story, just asserts (without the slightest justification) that Job has no right to ask for any justification.

Incidentally, people seem to forget that the story DOES tell us the reason that God fucked with Job (which included murdering his children, by the way). It wasn’t for any ineffable, mysterious, greater good. It was to win a bet with Satan. Then when called on his bullshit, God just throws a temper tantrum and swings his dick around, and refuses to explain himself to Job.

I had an OT prof who was convinced that the book of Job was intentional satire - the original shaggy dog story - that the story was mocking the “mysterious ways” dodge. I think he was right. Have you ever actually read the whole book? I think people have a basic idea of the book, but I don’t think many have actually read it all the way through. Try reading it as satire. It works. God behaves like a child in the book.

Convinced of what?

98

All I’m doing is addressing your own assertions. Why assert things if you aren’t willing to defend them?

99

There may well be other practical limits to God’s power. There is no actual limit, in much the same way that the FBI has the manpower and equipment to enter your house and bug your shower stall, but is stymied by self-imposed observance of the law.

The problem is that I suffer the same problems in understanding and comprehension as you do.

There was a short-lived TV series called Wonderfalls, in which the protagonist, Jaye, inexplicably began getting bizzare commands from previous inanimate objects. We never learn the source of this phenomenon; the show was canceled too quickly.

In one episode, she is commanded to break someone’s taillights. She reluctantly does so, and never learns why. For all that she can see, this was simply a malicious, desctructive act.

But we see that the owner of the car – a priest, interestingly enough – is ultimately pulled over by the police for the broken taillight, and then arrested on an outstanding warrant for failure to pay child support. Turns out he never knew he had a child; the baby was conceived before he entered the seminary and the mother didn’t tell him, and then didn’t know how to contact him.

Now, you may focus myopically on the question of why that was the only way, or the best way, to reunite mother, father, and child. But that question misses the point. The reason I tell the story is to show the unbridgable gulf between Jaye’s act and its consequences. She never knows what happens, and as far as the best logic and information she has will tell her, the act of breaking the taillights was uniformly negative.

Yet we, the viewers, have a different vantage point.We see something she cannot, and know that the result of the action was positive.

So, too, I contend, is the ultimate result of the suffering mentioned above – we simply lack the understanding and perspective to see it.

100

Because the OP didn’t ask me to defend them, and doing so would hijack the thread away from the question the OP asked.