I Googled "Why does God hate me?" and what I found was disturbing.

[Kitty Katzington]

There were a ton of Christian articles attempting to 'answer' this question. Every article I read just pissed me off even more, because they justify suffering in increasingly delusional ways. The impression I got from these people was of a broken Domestic Abuse victim trying to convince everyone that the abuse is proof of how much the abuser loves them.

Here are a few of the justifications I found in these articles:

1. God doesn't cause suffering, we do. Now don't get me wrong, I agree with this statement in a lot of cases. It's hard to deny that a big part of our suffering is caused by human action, but this article took it a step further. According to the author, even things such as famine, birth defects, SIDS, etc...well these things exist because a long time ago, a woman decided to eat some fruit.

2. The suffering itself is simply God trying to give you 'discipline', like any good Father would do. This specific article goes on to describe what happened to the Corinthians, who became sick and weak and died because they just wouldn't stop sinning. The will of the flesh must be killed by the spirit in order to be saved, and humanity must suffer greatly so that we will find shelter with God. It was pretty vague about what the "will of the flesh" is, I'm assuming it meant anything that makes you feel a little bit better when you are suffering.
I'd like to think they include other biological needs such as food and water, because that might at least explain why so many babies are allowed to starve to death in undeveloped areas. Apparently, babies who starve to death are most loved by God, because they weren't even given the option to sin with the "will of the flesh", and their suffering was immense and literally lasted their entire lives

3. The suffering is meant to make you empty, so that God may fill you back up with his love or whatever.
The example they gave was Naomi from the Book of Ruth (I assume they left out Job because seeing God make such a petty bet with Satan would make him look bad)
Quick recap of what happened to Naomi: She and her family travelled to a foreign land to escape severe famine. Upon arrival, God decided to murder all the male family members, leaving the females completely powerless and unable to provide for themselves in the misogynistic world of vague Bible times. Her suffering lasted several years, until her "redemption" in the form of her daughter in law getting pregnant. A redemption, by the way, that wouldn't be needed if God wasn't such a sadist.

...yeah, that's mostly what I got from these articles. God doesn't hate you, he's just a Sadist and that's how a sadist shows their love. By torturing you until you finally believe that the torture is the greatest kind of love you will ever have. The torture is the only kind of love you deserve, and you are expected to take it all and thank your torturer for the privilege of being made to suffer.

 

[eF577w0mK]

I would argue, first of all, that the Bible itself is pretty vague about this subject, the problem of evil. In the Book of Job, as you know, Job asks God that very same question, why do the righteous suffer, and God straight out refuses to answer him. And the same kind of unanswered doubt is expressed, for instance, in Ecclesiastes, and Romans 9. So the Bible never pretends to give a straightforward explanation, and every theory about it (a "theodicy", as is technically called) is a matter of speculation, and opinion varies from theologian to theologian.

Second, though the Bible certainly compels people to praise God, it doesn't chastise them for complaining. Half of the psalms are just expressions of anguish, Job complained a lot, there's a book called Lamentations, Jesus cried out "God, why have you forsaken me?", Paul said he rather preferred dying, etc.

Now, if you ask me what do I think, I'm inclined towards the Iranaean theodicy, which is the idea that through suffering people can become more understanding and loving than if they had been born in a perfect world, and in that sense humans are better than angels, and whatever unjust sufferings we go through they pale in comparison to the joy of the next life. A problem with that theory is idea of an eternal hell as punishment, but I'm a universalist so I don't worry about that too much lol

 

[Kitty Katzington]

Now, if you ask me what do I think, I'm inclined towards the Iranaean theodicy, which is the idea that through suffering people can become more understanding and loving than if they had been born in a perfect world, and in that sense humans are better than angels, and whatever unjust sufferings we go through they pale in comparison to the joy of the next life. A problem with that theory is idea of an eternal hell as punishment, but I'm a universalist so I don't worry about that too much lol

Even if you take eternal Hell out of the equation, there is still a major problem with this. Yes, a certain level of misfortune and suffering can make people more compassionate and understanding. When the suffering never seems to end though, that can easily turn into bitterness and rage. At a certain point the lesson has already been learned, and further suffering is just God getting his rocks off watching people suffer who don't deserve it, like the sadist he is.

And yeah, you mentioned not chastising people for being angry with God, or complaining, but that's not how the bitterness usually manifests. Sure, you may curse god, but you'll also start lashing out at other people and drive away everyone who actually loves you, not this messed-up God love that Christians keep trying to justify

 

[eF577w0mK]

When I said that suffering makes people better, I don't mean that, individually, by the end of their lives, all people will be better persons than if they had not suffered as much. What I mean is that, first, humanity as a whole, history, progresses through suffering towards something better. For instance, in Romans 11, Paul is talking to the gentiles about the unbeliever israelites: "Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!" So the idea is that, God made some of the israelites sin and suffer, and through that God is bringing salvation to the gentiles and the rest of the world. So suffering is not immediately good for the individual, but it has a global historical purpose. Humanity's understanding of life is dependent upon interpreting the suffering which preceeded it in time. Humanity as a whole learns from its experience. One could say, for instance, that Job suffered so that us can read about him and learn. And also, that contemporary society was built upon the lives of anonymous people who struggled and suffered in its creation, even if we don't see their influence. Great works of literature come from people who suffered all throughout ther lives.

Second, at an individual level, the fact that some people may become bitter, or other evil, all the way to the end of their lives, still doesn't mean that the experience was in vain for them. Because they still can improve and repent, be perfected, and the notion is that a repented evildoer, and people who went through great suffering, will have at the end of all things more value in some ways than other people. As Jesus said, "Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance." Or alternatively, people who know by experience what need and absence are, will appreciate a good life much more when they find it. As I said before, is about looking at things in a much broad way. If we know that someone, hypotetically, would become a very mean person if some calamity strikes him, are we to say that the best thing would be for things to keep going well? The christian response to that would be to say that such thing would be a form of self-complacency towards his faults. We are not supposed to ignore our faults in the middle of pleasure and good fortune, but rather we need to bring them to the front and deal with them head on, and sadly that's what suffering does: makes us conscious of the weakness of our being, so that we try to overcome it. If a ship doesn't go through stormy waters, how would we know it's a good ship?

Of course, I don't pretend that's a convincing explanation, but I think that's the theory, at least.

 

[Kitty Katzington]

When I said that suffering makes people better, I don't mean that, individually, by the end of their lives, all people will be better persons than if they had not suffered as much. What I mean is that, first, humanity as a whole, history, progresses through suffering towards something better. For instance, in Romans 11, Paul is talking to the gentiles about the unbeliever israelites: "Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!" So the idea is that, God made some of the israelites sin and suffer, and through that God is bringing salvation to the gentiles and the rest of the world. So suffering is not immediately good for the individual, but it has a global historical purpose. Humanity's understanding of life is dependent upon interpreting the suffering which preceeded it in time. Humanity as a whole learns from its experience. One could say, for instance, that Job suffered so that us can read about him and learn. And also, that contemporary society was built upon the lives of anonymous people who struggled and suffered in its creation, even if we don't see their influence. Great works of literature come from people who suffered all throughout ther lives.

Second, at an individual level, the fact that some people may become bitter, or other evil, all the way to the end of their lives, still doesn't mean that the experience was in vain for them. Because they still can improve and repent, be perfected, and the notion is that a repented evildoer, and people who went through great suffering, will have at the end of all things more value in some ways than other people. As Jesus said, "Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance." Or alternatively, people who know by experience what need and absence are, will appreciate a good life much more when they find it. As I said before, is about looking at things in a much broad way. If we know that someone, hypotetically, would become a very mean person if some calamity strikes him, are we to say that the best thing would be for things to keep going well? The christian response to that would be to say that such thing would be a form of self-complacency towards his faults. We are not supposed to ignore our faults in the middle of pleasure and good fortune, but rather we need to bring them to the front and deal with them head on, and sadly that's what suffering does: makes us conscious of the weakness of our being, so that we try to overcome it. If a ship doesn't go through stormy waters, how would we know it's a good ship?

Of course, I don't pretend that's a convincing explanation, but I think that's the theory, at least.

Call me crazy, but I don't like the idea of targeting specific, undeserving people for unfair torture and misery for some vague "greater good" scenario. Job is even worse, because he only got tortured because God was prideful and allowed Satan to utterly destroy that poor man just so God could win a fucking bet. Sure, God provided another "better" life afterward, but do you really think that makes it ok?
"Hey, sorry I specifically allowed Satan to target you and murder your entire family and Tribe, wipe out all your crops and animals, and bring you to the brink of death for the most petty reason imaginable... so here's a replacement wife and some money. We're good, right?"

Oh, and also...we're literally on a Suicide forum. How is someone supposed to repent if God drives them to suicide? Where is God's "love" then? Not to mention, apparently suicide itself is the worst sin you can possibly commit ( probably because God is pissed off that you tried to escape his torture, so he sends you to an eternal version of the most insane torture imaginable as punishment)

 

[eF577w0mK]

It's understandable to think that the suffering of some for the sake of the greater good is unfair. What I would point out though is that this is not a scenario of just "I suffer for the sake of others", because all religions have an interdependent view of reality, where the good of the world is good for you also. As Paul said, "But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it."

I think saying that God made Job suffer because of a bet is not quite right. God couldn't win anything, because he's God so he doesn't lack anything and is perfectly happy as he is, and he also is omniscient, so he knew what was going to happen in the future. The way I read the story, God is trying to prove a point through Job about the nature of faith. He wanted Job to become a more understanding man, and also use him as an example for the entire world of what a righteous person truly is, and chastise all his "friends" who really don't know a thing about life. In the traditional Jewish understanding, Satan is not even an evil entity, but rather a servant of God, "the Accuser", whose job is to try people's faithfulness. And I don't think that the fact that God gave him a new good life means that that's a replacement for his dead children or anything like that, but rather it just says there's always light at the end of the tunnel, not as some reward or compensation, but in a sense, as the fruit of your work and goodness. People love Job because he's a good person and he loves others.

The idea that suicide is the worst sin possible and that people who do it go to hell, is just a particular interpretation, which I think comes mainly through the influence of Augustin and Thomas Aquinas, but I think that's not a quite widespread view. The catholic church, for instance, says in its cathecism ,"We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways know to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for people who have taken their own lives". And I remember the quite moving story about Elijah, in Kings 19:

"Elijah was afraid and ran for his life. When he came to Beersheba in Judah, he left his servant there, while he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness. He came to a broom bush, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. “I have had enough, Lord,” he said. “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.” Then he lay down under the bush and fell asleep. All at once an angel touched him and said, “Get up and eat.” He looked around, and there by his head was some bread baked over hot coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank and then lay down again. The angel of the Lord came back a second time and touched him and said, “Get up and eat, for the journey is too much for you.” So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God."

It doesn't seem to me that the Bible in any way implies that people who fall into despair are somehow evil, but on the contrary it's rather sympathetic towards them.

 

[Kitty Katzington]

It's understandable to think that the suffering of some for the sake of the greater good is unfair. What I would point out though is that this is not a scenario of just "I suffer for the sake of others", because all religions have an interdependent view of reality, where the good of the world is good for you also. As Paul said, "But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it."

I think saying that God made Job suffer because of a bet is not quite right. God couldn't win anything, because he's God so he doesn't lack anything and is perfectly happy as he is, and he also is omniscient, so he knew what was going to happen in the future. The way I read the story, God is trying to prove a point through Job about the nature of faith. He wanted Job to become a more understanding man, and also use him as an example for the entire world of what a righteous person truly is, and chastise all his "friends" who really don't know a thing about life. In the traditional Jewish understanding, Satan is not even an evil entity, but rather a servant of God, "the Accuser", whose job is to try people's faithfulness. And I don't think that the fact that God gave him a new good life means that that's a replacement for his dead children or anything like that, but rather it just says there's always light at the end of the tunnel, not as some reward or compensation, but in a sense, as the fruit of your work and goodness. People love Job because he's a good person and he loves others.

The idea that suicide is the worst sin possible and that people who do it go to hell, is just a particular interpretation, which I think comes mainly through the influence of Augustin and Thomas Aquinas, but I think that's not a quite widespread view. The catholic church, for instance, says in its cathecism ,"We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways know to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for people who have taken their own lives". And I remember the quite moving story about Elijah, in Kings 19:

"Elijah was afraid and ran for his life. When he came to Beersheba in Judah, he left his servant there, while he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness. He came to a broom bush, sat down under it and prayed that he might die. “I have had enough, Lord,” he said. “Take my life; I am no better than my ancestors.” Then he lay down under the bush and fell asleep. All at once an angel touched him and said, “Get up and eat.” He looked around, and there by his head was some bread baked over hot coals, and a jar of water. He ate and drank and then lay down again. The angel of the Lord came back a second time and touched him and said, “Get up and eat, for the journey is too much for you.” So he got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God."

It doesn't seem to me that the Bible in any way implies that people who fall into despair are somehow evil, but on the contrary it's rather sympathetic towards them.

I appreciate your effort, you seem very knowledgeable on the subject...but I just can't believe in a loving God. There are far too many examples of suffering with no point, other than apparent cruelty for the sake of cruelty. I will stick to just one example, because this is one of the worst ones in my opinion.

Every day, roughly 10,000 seemingly innocent children die of starvation/malnutrition. That equals about 3.6 MILLION per year, just from this specific cause. Children suffer and die because a basic human need was denied for extended periods of time, either because of where they happened to be born, or because of the economical position of their parents. Either way, it's not the kids fault they die so terribly. They don't deserve that shit, and the biggest questions I have when looking at this information:

HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS HELP ANYBODY!?
HOW DOES THIS MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE?!

 

[Daisa]

You can't see GOD through human emotions. They are meaningless for the WHOLE.

GOD is beyond the limits of our WHOLE conception.

You will never find GOD.

You can't overcome your mind.

You won't go far beyond the abyss.

 

[eF577w0mK]

That's horrible, of course, and they definitely don't deserve it. I don't have a satisfactory answer, and I know justifying it is always gonna sound morbid, but I'll try neverheless.

First I don't think it's quite right to say that it doesn't serve any purpose. For one thing, it gives us the imperative to stop our selfishness and fix the brokenness of our society to prevent such things from happening. If people never suffered things they didn't deserve, that would mean that us not caring for someone is not gonna affect the other person, so there is no need for us to worry and connect with others. The fact that if you don't care for your child the child will, makes your moral responsibility absolutely clear. Death gives life meaning. Surely, that's unfair from the point of view of the child, but on the other hand, if people always love us and we live perfectly comfortable lives, what value does our love for other have? True love, it seems to me, is precisely to love when is hard and the other person doesn't deserve it. One could say that a suffering child can't learn that sort of lesson in her short life, but in a religious context there's life after death, and the resurrection of the death, eternity to reflect. Furthermore, I would argue that a world where people get what they deserve is actually a somewhat horrible world, because if we know we are gonna get good things if we do good, and bad things if we do bad, we would be tempted to simply do good because of rewards and fear of punishment. I know that sounds like heaven and hell, but heaven and hell are actually quite uncertain, generally speaking we don't know who goes where or how things are judged. And I actually rather like it that way, things being uncertain and unfair, because that means even if I'm imperfect things may go well for me, and if evil happens to me it doesn't mean that it's because I deserve it.

 

[Kitty Katzington]

That's horrible, of course, and they definitely don't deserve it. I don't have a satisfactory answer, and I know justifying it is always gonna sound morbid, but I'll try neverheless.

First I don't think it's quite right to say that it doesn't serve any purpose. For one thing, it gives us the imperative to stop our selfishness and fix the brokenness of our society to prevent such things from happening. If people never suffered things they didn't deserve, that would mean that us not caring for someone is not gonna affect the other person, so there is no need for us to worry and connect with others. The fact that if you don't care for your child the child will, makes your moral responsibility absolutely clear. Death gives life meaning. Surely, that's unfair from the point of view of the child, but on the other hand, if people always love us and we live perfectly comfortable lives, what value does our love for other have? True love, it seems to me, is precisely to love when is hard and the other person doesn't deserve it. One could say that a suffering child can't learn that sort of lesson in her short life, but in a religious context there's life after death, and the resurrection of the death, eternity to reflect. Furthermore, I would argue that a world where people get what they deserve is actually a somewhat horrible world, because if we know we are gonna get good things if we do good, and bad things if we do bad, we would be tempted to simply do good because of rewards and fear of punishment. I know that sounds like heaven and hell, but heaven and hell are actually quite uncertain, generally speaking we don't know who goes where or how things are judged. And I actually rather like it that way, things being uncertain and unfair, because that means even if I'm imperfect things may go well for me, and if evil happens to me it doesn't mean that it's because I deserve it.

...holy shit dude

 

[Kitty Katzington]

You can't see GOD through human emotions. They are meaningless for the WHOLE.

GOD is beyond the limits of our WHOLE conception.

You will never find GOD.

You can't overcome your mind.

You won't go far beyond the abyss.

You're probably right, It does feel like I'm in an inescapable abyss and that there is no God to find. Life is pointless, and death will just bring more pointless suffering. I will never escape the pain because God hates people like me

 

[Lady Wolfshead]

This is a really interesting thread and I love your arguments kitty, I will contribute my 2 cents. Firstly, I think nobody deserves to suffer. I think we may actually have limited free will. When you consider the influences of our individual biology and brains, and the environments we grow up in and the complex environments we grew up in... exactly what part of our decisions is free will? If I had the exact brain (empathy level, personality, desires et cetera) and upbringing of another person, I believe I would literally be that person. Where is the choice? Yes, we have the illusion of full choice, but the choices available to us and the ones we decide on are determined by other factors than our will. If I had no empathy (like a clinical psychopath) could I really become a kind, caring person? No.

Setting aside the question of free will and assuming that we have total free will, as most people assume, then the issue of suffering is still a problem. Because obviously many people suffer who have done anything wrong, and many people who have done terrible things get away with them.

I personally don't see God the way many do (for instance, as male, or necessarily omnipotent) and I believe humans wrote the Bible and it cannot reliably be proven to be the word of God. I see God as a higher consciousness that exists within each (or most) of us and possibly outside of us. Even if God created the universe, God would surely still bound by certain rules, even if those of his/her own creation. You can't pull matter out of nothing without creating anti-matter. You can't create light without creating darkness. Each thing creates its opposite and that goes for health and sickness, good and evil, joy and pain, etc. And all the shades in between.

The writer Robert J. Sawyer, in his awesome book Calculating God, portrays God as a hyperintelligent alien who created the system but basically then moves on and leaves it to run itself. It only steps in when it sees the Earth about to be destroyed by an outside force, then takes off again.

Because let's face it, the system runs itself now, without intervention from a higher power. Probably there's no decision that children starve - that is determined by weather patterns, human history and many other factors. The system is so intricate that it seems random and it's tempting to believe that either there's no divine cause at all, or conversely that God is somehow micro-managing every little thing for each and every person and deciding how they will suffer. But I believe neither is true. It's the intelligence of the system, combined with whatever will humans have.

So I choose to believe in a caring God, but this is a personal choice. It may be wishful thinking although I find parts of the Bible compelling, including the Gospels. I also found help in Buddhist philosophy, in that there will always be suffering but we can lessen our suffering by our mindset. Instead of focusing on the negative (such as illness and death) we can focus on having compassion (including compassion for ourselves).

Basically I see reality as something like a continuum where one side is dark, one light and every shade in between. Roughly half falls into the "negative" side and half into the "positive" side. This is not at all to say that each person's life contains this same balance though. But there will be a tendency for each person's experience to contain both sides. It's 3 am as I write this and maybe I'm not making sense but there you go...

Bottom line: Nobody is making us suffer. We don't deserve it. It's just part of reality and however we choose to deal with it, we shouldn't increase our suffering by imagining we somehow brought it on ourselves or that some divine being is ignoring our pleas for help. I believe God loves us but may literally not be able to intervene without destroying the integrity of the system.

 

[eF577w0mK]

This is a really interesting thread and I love your arguments kitty, I will contribute my 2 cents. Firstly, I think nobody deserves to suffer. I think we may actually have limited free will. When you consider the influences of our individual biology and brains, and the environments we grow up in and the complex environments we grew up in... exactly what part of our decisions is free will? If I had the exact brain (empathy level, personality, desires et cetera) and upbringing of another person, I believe I would literally be that person. Where is the choice? Yes, we have the illusion of full choice, but the choices available to us and the ones we decide on are determined by other factors than our will. If I had no empathy (like a clinical psychopath) could I really become a kind, caring person? No.

Setting aside the question of free will and assuming that we have total free will, as most people assume, then the issue of suffering is still a problem. Because obviously many people suffer who have done anything wrong, and many people who have done terrible things get away with them.

I personally don't see God the way many do (for instance, as male, or necessarily omnipotent) and I believe humans wrote the Bible and it cannot reliably be proven to be the word of God. I see God as a higher consciousness that exists within each (or most) of us and possibly outside of us. Even if God created the universe, God would surely still bound by certain rules, even if those of his/her own creation. You can't pull matter out of nothing without creating anti-matter. You can't create light without creating darkness. Each thing creates its opposite and that goes for health and sickness, good and evil, joy and pain, etc. And all the shades in between.

The writer Robert J. Sawyer, in his awesome book Calculating God, portrays God as a hyperintelligent alien who created the system but basically then moves on and leaves it to run itself. It only steps in when it sees the Earth about to be destroyed by an outside force, then takes off again.

Because let's face it, the system runs itself now, without intervention from a higher power. Probably there's no decision that children starve - that is determined by weather patterns, human history and many other factors. The system is so intricate that it seems random and it's tempting to believe that either there's no divine cause at all, or conversely that God is somehow micro-managing every little thing for each and every person and deciding how they will suffer. But I believe neither is true. It's the intelligence of the system, combined with whatever will humans have.

So I choose to believe in a caring God, but this is a personal choice. It may be wishful thinking although I find parts of the Bible compelling, including the Gospels. I also found help in Buddhist philosophy, in that there will always be suffering but we can lessen our suffering by our mindset. Instead of focusing on the negative (such as illness and death) we can focus on having compassion (including compassion for ourselves).

Basically I see reality as something like a continuum where one side is dark, one light and every shade in between. Roughly half falls into the "negative" side and half into the "positive" side. This is not at all to say that each person's life contains this same balance though. But there will be a tendency for each person's experience to contain both sides. It's 3 am as I write this and maybe I'm not making sense but there you go...

Bottom line: Nobody is making us suffer. We don't deserve it. It's just part of reality and however we choose to deal with it, we shouldn't increase our suffering by imagining we somehow brought it on ourselves or that some divine being is ignoring our pleas for help. I believe God loves us but may literally not be able to intervene without destroying the integrity of the system.

The main problem I have with your view is that I don't think that helps to solve the problem of evil. Because if you are saying that suffering and evil are essential parts of existence, and actually half of reality has to be evil in order for good te exist, then the natural question, it seems to me, would be the anti-natalist one: Wasn't then immoral on the part of God to bring the universe into existence? If the net suffering-happiness balance of the universe is zero (or even negative, depending on how you judge it), and nothing can be done about it, then how is it that it was justified to create it in the first place? If a person is born, and lives a life full of great suffering, and then dies, without any hope for a new life because God doesn't intervine with the laws of nature and can't create better realities, how can you justify God having created her? The fact that other people will be happy, justify the existence of the suffering of others for whom that fact is meaningless? The fact that rich people in first world countries are happy, is supposed to justify the holocaust? And your view seems to suggest that great evils are just gonna happen for all eternity, so one could say that children are destined to be raped indefinitely in all possible universes, because evil is destined to be all-pervasive and history arbitrary.

 

[Lady Wolfshead]

The main problem I have with your view is that I don't think that helps to solve the problem of evil. Because if you are saying that suffering and evil are essential parts of existence, and actually half of reality has to be evil in order for good te exist, then the natural question, it seems to me, would be the anti-natalist one: Wasn't then immoral on the part of God to bring the universe into existence? If the net suffering-happiness balance of the universe is zero (or even negative, depending on how you judge it), and nothing can be done about it, then how is it that it was justified to create it in the first place? If a person is born, and lives a life full of great suffering, and then dies, without any hope for a new life because God doesn't intervine with the laws of nature and can't create better realities, how can you justify God having created her? The fact that other people will be happy, justify the existence of the suffering of others for whom that fact is meaningless? The fact that rich people in first world countries are happy, is supposed to justify the holocaust? And your view seems to suggest that great evils are just gonna happen for all eternity, so one could say that children are destined to be raped indefinitely in all possible universes, because evil is destined to be all-pervasive and history arbitrary.

Well I don't think any argument can solve the problem of evil, although I did say "roughly" equal balance of positive and negative (and I am including everything we label negative, such as fires, floods, illness etc when these are just natural occurrences) and we as humans can eliminate a lot of evil by changing our behaviour. I do think some humans have more insight and free will than others and collectively have the capacity to achieve some kind of societal change. Social safety nets are evidence of this. So extremes such as child rape and the Holocaust are not inevitable even in a system where suffering of some kind is inevitable. And even if such things are likely to happen given the way human brains and drives exist (bigotry, pedophilia), it doesn't mean we as humans just shrug our shoulders and say, oh well it was bound to happen. I don't believe that is what God intended. We fight evil, of course.

And in no way did I suggest, as you said, that every person lives a life of great suffering and dies without hope. This is hyperbole. There is of course a lot of good in the world including health, joy, bonds of family and friendship, and human empathy and kindness.

And we didn't discuss an afterlife which is traditionally how humans achieve peace with the idea of suffering in this world, that there will be justice and peace in the life to come.

And why would it be immoral for God to bring a world with both joy and suffering in equal amounts into existence? If anything it would be a neutral action. And if you literally could not create a world with joy without creating equal amounts of suffering, would it be better to do nothing? I'm not sure. As I said, in Buddhist philosophy people can lessen their suffering by changing their mindset.

 

[Lady Wolfshead]

If you look back at my post, I was not talking about evil but suffering. So I think we may have a disconnect there. I didn't say there is 50% evil and 50% goodness in the world, although I have heard many people on SF express that they think humans are all evil, so 50% would be an improvement.

 

[eF577w0mK]

Well I don't think any argument can solve the problem of evil, although I did say "roughly" equal balance of positive and negative (and I am including everything we label negative, such as fires, floods, illness etc when these are just natural occurrences) and we as humans can eliminate a lot of evil by changing our behaviour. I do think some humans have more insight and free will than others and collectively have the capacity to achieve some kind of societal change. Social safety nets are evidence of this. So extremes such as child rape and the Holocaust are not inevitable even in a system where suffering of some kind is inevitable. And even if such things are likely to happen given the way human brains and drives exist (bigotry, pedophilia), it doesn't mean we as humans just shrug our shoulders and say, oh well it was bound to happen. I don't believe that is what God intended. We fight evil, of course.

And in no way did I suggest, as you said, that every person lives a life of great suffering and dies without hope. This is hyperbole. There is of course a lot of good in the world including health, joy, bonds of family and friendship, and human empathy and kindness.

And we didn't discuss an afterlife which is traditionally how humans achieve peace with the idea of suffering in this world, that there will be justice and peace in the life to come.

And why would it be immoral for God to bring a world with both joy and suffering in equal amounts into existence? If anything it would be a neutral action. And if you literally could not create a world with joy without creating equal amounts of suffering, would it be better to do nothing? I'm not sure. As I said, in Buddhist philosophy people can lessen their suffering by changing their mindset.

But if humans can really improve and society get better, why didn't God create the universe already in that state? Or if you are including the possibility of a peaceful after life, why not just be born there in the first place? It seems to me that if you say that God can't create people which are already good and happy, but rather that they most and will do it by their own effort, then you are saying basically the same that me: that suffering is needed.

I think that if half the universe is happiness and the other half suffering, I wouldn't say that's neutral. Because if I were to have two children, and I knew that one was going to be happy while the other was gonna endure immense suffering and misery all his life, I would think it would be better if I didn't had children. Suffering weights more than happiness.

 

[Lady Wolfshead]

But if humans can really improve and society get better, why didn't God create the universe already in that state? Or if you are including the possibility of a peaceful after life, why not just be born there in the first place? It seems to me that if you say that God can't create people which are already good and happy, but rather that they most and will do it by their own effort, then you are saying basically the same that me: that suffering is needed.

I think that if half the universe is happiness and the other half suffering, I wouldn't say that's neutral. Because if I were to have two children, and I knew that one was going to be happy while the other was gonna endure immense suffering and misery all his life, I would think it would be better if I didn't had children. Suffering weights more than happiness.

Of course my insight into God's motivation is speculative. You aren't offering any alternatives, though. But yes, I do believe suffering is an intrinsic part of living just like joy is. I would say your example of the two children is rather silly because it is highly unlikely that one child would be nothing but happy and the other child would do nothing but suffer. However, people do have children who are in constant, unremitting pain from medical conditions from birth onwards, and their pain will only increase. There's a famous case here in Canada of a man named Robert Latimer who killed his young daughter for such a reason. He was convicted, even though everyone involved agreed he only acted out of love and care for her. So does that mean nobody should have children, because some are going to suffer?

 

[Kitty Katzington]

So does that mean nobody should have children, because some are going to suffer?

Considering the upcoming climate apocalypse...probably, yeah

 

[LonelyHiker]

Considering the upcoming climate apocalypse...probably, yeah

I love my son more than anything else in this world, but if I had it to do over again, I probably wouldn't have had children.

Upcoming? It's already begun, if you ask me...

 

[Daisa]

Our reason to exist is give birth to new senses. We can continue dreaming, unless the WHOLE is just ourselves.