God and Suffering

[1968]

Some of us ask God (others ask the government) to deliver us from ourselves. Why should he?

Is it OK to ask God that he deliver us from our government?

[gemstone]

Is it OK to ask God that he deliver us from our government?

Yes it is!

[AngryFish]

Christofer,
By saying that

“Whether noticed in a tree, grass, a star or galaxy, organic or inorganic, a cyclic re-birth of things, life as we currently understand it, seems to be “in its time”.”

I am suggesting that looking from our vantage point either direction we see infinity before and after us. We are only a part of now and because we are a part of now forced into its context which becomes our perspective. “Now” can be defined in any way but the definition is limited by our ability to comprehend outside of the restrictions of our context. Concepts like time, space, and matter, for example are relative to us because they are applicable to our context. An example that highlights this trap on a smaller scale would be like this. When asking some evolutionists why there is no life on the moon or on the surface of our sun they will say that conditions are not favorable to life in these environments. That is exactly the response you expect to get when you are limited by your context. There is no reason, evolutionarily speaking, why abundant life is not present on either or both of these places, it just happened here because we, our context, is in it’s time. I look forward to the C.S. Lewis quote, I love the way his mind worked.

[Alan W]

. . . . If I were a holocaust victim, I could probably find enough humor in that to see me through.
Chip

You're so right, Chip . . . . .

"They tortured us . . . forced us to flee across the desert . . . . put us in ovens . . . forced us to live in famine and pestulance. OK, enough. Let's eat!"

[Christosfer]

Christofer,
By saying that

“Whether noticed in a tree, grass, a star or galaxy, organic or inorganic, a cyclic re-birth of things, life as we currently understand it, seems to be “in its time”.”

I am suggesting that looking from our vantage point either direction we see infinity before and after us. We are only a part of now and because we are a part of now forced into its context which becomes our perspective. “Now” can be defined in any way but the definition is limited by our ability to comprehend outside of the restrictions of our context. Concepts like time, space, and matter, for example are relative to us because they are applicable to our context. An example that highlights this trap on a smaller scale would be like this. When asking some evolutionists why there is no life on the moon or on the surface of our sun they will say that conditions are not favorable to life in these environments. That is exactly the response you expect to get when you are limited by your context. There is no reason, evolutionarily speaking, why abundant life is not present on either or both of these places, it just happened here because we, our context, is in it’s time. I look forward to the C.S. Lewis quote, I love the way his mind worked.

Very interesting post. I am having a hard time following you on this. Our context, or life as we know it sustains life as we know it. If we do away with our understanding based on this idea of limitation by context, then positing God would be quite reasonable. God is outside our context on the basis of time, space, and matter, at least according to classical Theology. Yet He has created our context, and entered into it. Furthermore, if we are limited by our context, and can't even grasp the extent of our context, how can we say that there is no creator of our context?
I hope that actually addressed what you said here. If I made a point it was purely by chance. Then again, the order of words does point to an intelligent agent.

How about a syllogism:
1. If right and wrong exist; God exists.
2. Right and wrong do exist.
3. God exists.

And now for my long awaited C.S. Lewis quote:
"It seems, then, that we are forced to believe in a real right and wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologize to them. They had much better read some other book, for nothing I am going to say concerns them." (Mere Christianity. C.S. Lewis Pg.7)

[AngryFish]

"How about a syllogism:
1. If right and wrong exist; God exists.
2. Right and wrong do exist.
3. God exists."

This is where that first leap I mentioned occurs. It is to assume facts not in evidence to say that God exists because certain logical impediments to life exist. Natural law is expressed explicitly to ensure the survival and procreation of life it is completely void of the need for spiritual meaning. Order can be ascribed to a temporary homeostasis that is present and supports our context. This removes the first two assumptions that are essential to support your statement above.

[AngryFish]

Yes you understand what I am trying to say regarding context but the two statements below are not supported by understanding context.

“If we do away with our understanding based on this idea of limitation by context, then positing God would be quite reasonable.”

No, acknowledging the limitations of our context does nothing to support the existence of God. At most it simply says there is a lot we do not know.

“… if we are limited by our context, and can't even grasp the extent of our context, how can we say that there is no creator of our context?...”

I am suggesting that there is no need to go outside of our context to understand suffering. It is a function of our context in terms of fostering conditions favorable to sustaining life and procreation and therefore has meaning and is not spiritually derivative. It is the belief in a God that necessitates an argument formulated outside of our context because within our context it is not needed to understand suffering.

[hcjilson]

Blessed are they who speak in circles.....for they shall be known as big wheels! :)

[Christosfer]

"This is where that first leap I mentioned occurs. It is to assume facts not in evidence to say that God exists because certain logical impediments to life exist. Natural law is expressed explicitly to ensure the survival and procreation of life it is completely void of the need for spiritual meaning. Order can be ascribed to a temporary homeostasis that is present and supports our context. This removes the first two assumptions that are essential to support your statement above."


How does order arise? If I park my bicycle in the garage long enough will it become a Mercedes sedan? How does life arise from non-life, and consciousness from unconsciousness? How did matter make the leap to consciousness?

If there is order, how do you explain the first cause of the universe? Do you say that matter came from nothing? That is not orderly, and if it were true then I should expect my bicycle to become a mercedes, or for the mercedes to just arise from nothing. So, do you believe in an eternal personal consciousness, or eternal matter? If there is another option I would like to hear what it is.

I think that your argument has some problems.

[Christosfer]

Yes you understand what I am trying to say regarding context but the two statements below are not supported by understanding context.

“If we do away with our understanding based on this idea of limitation by context, then positing God would be quite reasonable.”

No, acknowledging the limitations of our context does nothing to support the existence of God. At most it simply says there is a lot we do not know.

“… if we are limited by our context, and can't even grasp the extent of our context, how can we say that there is no creator of our context?...”

I am suggesting that there is no need to go outside of our context to understand suffering. It is a function of our context in terms of fostering conditions favorable to sustaining life and procreation and therefore has meaning and is not spiritually derivative. It is the belief in a God that necessitates an argument formulated outside of our context because within our context it is not needed to understand suffering.

With suffering also comes the idea that it is not supposed to be this way. There is a sense of injustice that arises in us when we hear of children suffering. To explain that away as a chemical reaction within the brain for the sustaining of life removes meaning. Life becomes meaningless when purpose is removed does it not?

If we take history into account when we consider our context then we have the argument for God within our context. God became a man in person of Jesus of Nazareth. He proved it by dying a Roman crucifixion and being bodily resurrected. He gave suffering purpose. He redeemed it.

[AngryFish]

We have to be systematic in our approach. The onus is on you to prove your statement that suffering equals meaning equals Christ is the only answer, this is where we began. Nothing you have presented furthers your hypothesis. So that takes us back to my argument that holds suffering is easily explained outside of the need to introduce God. If you jump ahead and assume “facts” that you hold as having been established and they are not in our dialogue we lose an opportunity to understand one another and that would be a loss, for at least, one of us.

I want to give you an example of what I mean. I do not entertain the idea of chasing any of these points but I use it to exemplify the approach of introducing extraneous or assumed information and why it could stifle our dialogue.

I have done some study on the human brain and can say with confidence that brain function and chemistry are responsible for far more than in terms of beliefs systems and rituals than most realize. A range of emotions and feelings can be induced via, chemical, electrical, magnetic, or other stimuli that can simulate everything from terror to nirvana, from being in the presence of evil to being brought back to life, all done in a laboratory. It can be demonstrated that the brain of a serial killer is significantly and functionally different than everyone else’s, and that some people are physiologically disposed to depression or mania. Prayer cannot heal every sick person, some would argue any sick person, and is arguably nothing more than a barometer of what is going on internally or some sort of positive thinking not a connection in anyway to anything supernatural. Christians are the most fractured group of “believers” that there is. There a more types of “Baptist” than there are models of car produced since the turn of the last century and there are arguably more crazy preachers than politicians. In the course of the last year I can’t count the number of nationally recognized preachers that have been defrocked because of scandals over sex or money. And lets not forget prophecy, since the days on the earth when the very twelve who walked with Jesus of Nazareth NOBODY has gotten ANY prophecy right. Christ Himself told the disciples he would be given up and raised in three days and they stood around looking at each other with confused looks on their faces and they were the closest people to Him. But it seems every preacher is a prophet, and lets not get into literal or figurative, King James or any other translation, grape juice or wine, Saturday or Sunday. One step at a time.

If our goal is to help those who are in suffering and we believe we have the answer that will comfort, we have a solemn responsibility to offer in as persuasive and compassionate a way possible the information needed to help those hurting and in need.

[AngryFish]

I ran across an interesting post on the topic we are discussing that is on point with our discussion and showed me a line of thinking I never really considered…maybe I should. Is it simply a matter of human pride that we have to "understand" the mind of God to be his "equal"? Isn't there somthing to be said for the humility to recognize our limitations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by enarchay
Whether God created man through evolution or not is not really important. Genesis is not a science hand book; it is a book about God and his direct relationship with man, specifically Israel.

Whether God actually created the world in seven days or not is besides the point; the point is, God was involved.

I wont debate for or against evolution because God hasn't given enough details in His account of creation.
I don't believe in evolution and I don't disbelieve evolution but, I will say that if God used the laws He created of physics or, laws of chemistry or, laws of biology...He created all of them. All of the laws of nature He created.
If He used these laws to create a creature, that doesn't mean that the law created the creature or, the earth or dust of the earth created the creature "God still created the creature" (using the laws of nature that He created).
Gods word didn't give enough details in Genesis for any man to decide, proclaim or judge or assume the details of creation are firmly established one way or the other.

The thing that is bringing my attention back to this subject now is some people posting on this topic so quickly demonize anyone who even mentions evolution and, I'de like to point out that the words they use come from their own PRIDE...for they know EVERYTHING there is to know about EVERYTHING in thier Pride and even know better than God what should be thought on, taught and institutionalized.

I approached this topic from a position of humility and not pride, I don't know EVERYTHING but I rest in Gods word to validate or deny truth and wont categorize people with titles such as "evolutionist" and demonize them out of my insecurity and lack of knowledge, I am secure in my lack of knowledge because when I need to know truth about a thing, it can be validated or denied from Gods written word and if it isn't made clear in Gods word then it isnt an issue God feels is worthy enough to address let alone demonize it or persecute all association to it.


If a new star is born in heaven out of gas, that gas evolved by the laws and forces of physics and created a new star in heaven. God still created the star using the laws of physics, are the scientist who share with their fellow man what they have learned about this evolution of gas "evolutionist" because they explained how gas evolved by the laws of physics into solid mass and created a new star. Or are they evil because insecure people are threatened in thier partial knowledge of Gods mysterious ways in which He works?

Ive yet to hear some leaders in the body of Christ stop demonizing what they don't understand and teaching others to do the same, when even God hasn't made the truth clear in His written word. I say it must not be an issue that matters If God didn't clearly define it.


http://bibleforums.org/forum/showthread.php?t=100644

[chip anderson]

Once there was a man who thought he had become God's equal. He challenged God and said he could make anything God had made.
God said: "I made that tree, let's see you make one."
The man said: "Easy, I'll just get some dirt."
And God said: "Gotta make your own dirt."

[rinselberg]

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...4&postcount=37

That was a well conceived and well written post.

I don't do the "reputation points" thing ...

Stay "Angry", Fish ...

[renee1111]

My belief is that god is a part of us all. I truly believe that there is a "consciousness" holding us together, so to speak. What I mean by that is that when you look at the world, the things around you, they appear as solid as can be, when in reality is all an illusion. We and eveything in the universe are simply made of atoms. Atoms are composed of vibrating energy patterns, that have no solidity at all, no mass or size, nothing for the senses to see or touch. Energy vibrating at different speeds, is what differentiates a wall from a feather. At the quantum level nothing of the material world is left intact. It is strange enough to hold up your hand and realize that it is actually, at a deeper level, invisible vibrations taking place in a void. The electron is the largest illusion, since it too breaks down into energy vibrations that wink in and out of existence millions of times per second. Our brain plays tricks on us by "seeing" solid objects that are continuous in time and space, the same way a movie seems continuous. A movie actually only consists of something like 24 still pictures flashing by per second, with 24 gaps of blackness as each frame is taken away and a new one put in it's place. Since our brains can't perceive 48 stop-motion events in one second, the illusion of that movie is created. Now speed this up by many powers of 10 and you get the trick we call real life. You and I exist as flashing photons with a black void in between each flash-the quantum light show comprises our whole body, our every thought and wish and every event we take part in. In other words, we are being created over and over again, all the time. Who is behind this neverending creation? Whose power of mind or vision is capable of taking the universe away and putting back in a fraction of a second? Or more importantly, are we interconnected or part of a larger whole? When everything that surrounds us is essentially made of energy, where do I end and you begin?

This, to me is the answer to life’s greatest mystery……we are all one. All are a part of a larger whole, you may want to call god.

This statement can change the world. Think about it, would you hurt or kill another if you knew at a deeper level you were doing this to yourself? Of course not, self preservation would take-on a whole new meaning.

Life is a gift of self-discovery, we have given ourselves all the tools to live a more fulfilling existence. All we must do is look deep inside ourselves for the answers that have always been there, and will forever be.

[Christosfer]

My belief is that god is a part of us all. I truly believe that there is a "consciousness" holding us together, so to speak. What I mean by that is that when you look at the world, the things around you, they appear as solid as can be, when in reality is all an illusion. We and eveything in the universe are simply made of atoms. Atoms are composed of vibrating energy patterns, that have no solidity at all, no mass or size, nothing for the senses to see or touch. Energy vibrating at different speeds, is what differentiates a wall from a feather. At the quantum level nothing of the material world is left intact. It is strange enough to hold up your hand and realize that it is actually, at a deeper level, invisible vibrations taking place in a void. The electron is the largest illusion, since it too breaks down into energy vibrations that wink in and out of existence millions of times per second. Our brain plays tricks on us by "seeing" solid objects that are continuous in time and space, the same way a movie seems continuous. A movie actually only consists of something like 24 still pictures flashing by per second, with 24 gaps of blackness as each frame is taken away and a new one put in it's place. Since our brains can't perceive 48 stop-motion events in one second, the illusion of that movie is created. Now speed this up by many powers of 10 and you get the trick we call real life. You and I exist as flashing photons with a black void in between each flash-the quantum light show comprises our whole body, our every thought and wish and every event we take part in. In other words, we are being created over and over again, all the time. Who is behind this neverending creation? Whose power of mind or vision is capable of taking the universe away and putting back in a fraction of a second? Or more importantly, are we interconnected or part of a larger whole? When everything that surrounds us is essentially made of energy, where do I end and you begin?

This, to me is the answer to life’s greatest mystery……we are all one. All are a part of a larger whole, you may want to call god.

This statement can change the world. Think about it, would you hurt or kill another if you knew at a deeper level you were doing this to yourself? Of course not, self preservation would take-on a whole new meaning.

Life is a gift of self-discovery, we have given ourselves all the tools to live a more fulfilling existence. All we must do is look deep inside ourselves for the answers that have always been there, and will forever be.

There are several groups that believe along those lines. If you want to look at "reality" down to that level I can accept the idea of us being a whirl of energy. However, I would not say that we are god, or part of god.
Did we create ourselves? If there is a consciousness that creaeted this mass of whirling energy and holds it together in whatever form we wish to think of it, then wouldn't this consciouness be something other than us?

The bible says in Colossians; " For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible...He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Colossians 1:15-17

There is your creative consciousness and mine.

If we see that we were created for a purpose, then we might also seek that purpose, rather than our own needs and desires. This is changing the world. The question is, who will be apart of it?

[chip anderson]

God is spelled with a capitol G!!

[Christosfer]

Accept when referring to idols and false gods.

[Christosfer]

We have to be systematic in our approach. The onus is on you to prove your statement that suffering equals meaning equals Christ is the only answer, this is where we began. Nothing you have presented furthers your hypothesis. So that takes us back to my argument that holds suffering is easily explained outside of the need to introduce God. If you jump ahead and assume “facts” that you hold as having been established and they are not in our dialogue we lose an opportunity to understand one another and that would be a loss, for at least, one of us.

I want to give you an example of what I mean. I do not entertain the idea of chasing any of these points but I use it to exemplify the approach of introducing extraneous or assumed information and why it could stifle our dialogue.

I have done some study on the human brain and can say with confidence that brain function and chemistry are responsible for far more than in terms of beliefs systems and rituals than most realize. A range of emotions and feelings can be induced via, chemical, electrical, magnetic, or other stimuli that can simulate everything from terror to nirvana, from being in the presence of evil to being brought back to life, all done in a laboratory. It can be demonstrated that the brain of a serial killer is significantly and functionally different than everyone else’s, and that some people are physiologically disposed to depression or mania. Prayer cannot heal every sick person, some would argue any sick person, and is arguably nothing more than a barometer of what is going on internally or some sort of positive thinking not a connection in anyway to anything supernatural. Christians are the most fractured group of “believers” that there is. There a more types of “Baptist” than there are models of car produced since the turn of the last century and there are arguably more crazy preachers than politicians. In the course of the last year I can’t count the number of nationally recognized preachers that have been defrocked because of scandals over sex or money. And lets not forget prophecy, since the days on the earth when the very twelve who walked with Jesus of Nazareth NOBODY has gotten ANY prophecy right. Christ Himself told the disciples he would be given up and raised in three days and they stood around looking at each other with confused looks on their faces and they were the closest people to Him. But it seems every preacher is a prophet, and lets not get into literal or figurative, King James or any other translation, grape juice or wine, Saturday or Sunday. One step at a time.

If our goal is to help those who are in suffering and we believe we have the answer that will comfort, we have a solemn responsibility to offer in as persuasive and compassionate a way possible the information needed to help those hurting and in need.

I agree, the onus is on me.
1. We agree there is suffering.
2. Suffering reveals a moral law in the sense that almost w/o exception it is thought unjust or unfair or atleast not the way it is supposed to be.
3. A moral law requires a moral law giver, otherwise it is not law, but rather some subjective rules that we refer to when appealing to our rights.

I will leave it at this for now.
I enjoy this conversation and appreciate the challenge that you are giving me.

[Christosfer]

As for the evolution argument; my issue is that original sin and the fall of man is something that I think is evidenced as real. Evolution eliminates the biblical of a literal original sin by the first man under covenant with God. Capital G!

[AngryFish]

Christofer, you said,"Suffering reviels moral law..." How can you conclude that without having already concluded God exsists?

You are interpreting the stimuli as having more meaning than what is necessary to explain its purpose. There is no need to add a spiritual component to the stimuli to understand its function. Any obstacles to life and procreation and by extrapolation the various meanings of wellbeing and comfort would be interpreted as undesirable and thus avoided for survivals sake to assume more is to introduce without reason.

I agree with you on the issue of Original Sin and there are issues of literal vs. figurative throughout, that to me, are fundamental in the understanding of Christ being the answer that also become problematic as a result, but first thing first.

[AngryFish]

Renee1111,

Great post, I loved the imagery and explanation.

I would say “all” is a context not an “illusion” because an illusion is absence of substance or structure. Context would be the framework in which “all” is made evident, even if it is infinitely and perpetually transient. Framework would allow for laws and complexity on which to build “all”.

I can’t say that I share the idea that accepting this explanation would revolutionize human interaction. Many people put little value on life whether it is somebody else’s or their own. Interconnection would have no mitigating affect on the actions of these people. We see daily how people appear to be ever more willing to take their own life in order to end the lives of others so I don’t see how the thought that their lives were connected would in any way make them fundamentally change. Further if all life is inextricably linked what would it matter? I am just moving on to another state of being. Nothing was, or can, be accomplished in this life, nothing solved, the root problem, whatever it was that motivated the hatred, would carry on to the next state, that is if consciousness transcends this current state of our existence. If the consciousness does not transcend our current state it is meaningless, it is only present as a blip in eternity. If it has no cause and no purpose what we do is of little consequence as it only pertains to fractions of time to small to calculate in between the void where a perceived order is congealed from nothing and then returns, nothing more.

[Christosfer]

Christofer, you said,"Suffering reviels moral law..." How can you conclude that without having already concluded God exsists?

You are interpreting the stimuli as having more meaning than what is necessary to explain its purpose. There is no need to add a spiritual component to the stimuli to understand its function. Any obstacles to life and procreation and by extrapolation the various meanings of wellbeing and comfort would be interpreted as undesirable and thus avoided for survivals sake to assume more is to introduce without reason.

I agree with you on the issue of Original Sin and there are issues of literal vs. figurative throughout, that to me, are fundamental in the understanding of Christ being the answer that also become problematic as a result, but first thing first.

I am not just referring to the moral law, but also to the fact that people argue from the the standpoint that there are fundamental right and wrongs. Ala C.S. Lewis. It is one thing to explain away the conscience as an evolutionary process, but it is another thing to refer to that moral law as objective without an anchor.
How would you explain it?

[1968]

I am not just referring to the moral law, but also to the fact that people argue from the the standpoint that there are fundamental right and wrongs. Ala C.S. Lewis. It is one thing to explain away the conscience as an evolutionary process, but it is another thing to refer to that moral law as objective without an anchor.
How would you explain it?

I am sure that everyone of us has been involved in discussions such as these that end up arguing for or against the presence of God... and we all know how they end up. Despite my better judgment, I'll take a crack at the question.

Things are not "right" or "wrong" independent of a standard... I believe this standard is the "anchor" to which you referred. Some believe that standard to be God's word... it is right to behave a certain way because God wants me to behave that way. Other believe that standard is life... it is right to behave a certain way because it allows me to live. No doubt both sides would present an argument as to whose standard is objective, however, I think they would need to come to a common understanding on the definition of "objective".

[chip anderson]

Today I was recruiting for a church blood drive that isn't going too well and thinking about this thread and had a couple of great revelations.
1) God created this earth which is and ideal place, created us and made us ideal to live on this rock. God gave us a lot more than we deserve at that point. God owes us nothing. We owe God for this.
2) God expects us to take care of each other. I tried this for my blood drive pitch with only two more volunteers.
3) There may or may not be an after life with rewards for the faithful and hell for the unfaithfull. But God never promised us freedom from the trials of this life.
4) We all start out naked an alone in this life and leave it not much different. What we make of life in between an what we contribute to those around us is all we can count on .

Chip

There are two kinds of people in the world, those who do and those who complain.