1 edit
Originally posted by mazda9934The Bible paints an image of an awesome and somewhat mysterious God that seems somewhat aloof at times but at the same time one that loves us enough to send us his Son to die for us in order for us to have relations with him once again.
Please bring to mind your image of God.
Then, please tell me why he allows very small children to suffer and die ??
(No one has EVER given me a plausible answer to this question)
As for why children have to die, we all have to die at some point no matter our age. This fate was sealed when man fell. I think the quesiton is, why do "innocent" people have to suffer? However, I think the real quesiton is why anyone has to suffer. Biblically, suffering is correlated to sin, so if man had not fallen and sinned, none of us would be suffering and its destructive nature cares little about whether one is "innocent' or not. So the question becomes why was man allowed to sin?
I have struggled with this questoin and think I have found some answers. The Bible says that God is love, so what are the properties of a mutual loving relationship? Is it not free will to love another back? Without the ability of both parties to love each other, their is no mutual loving relationship. When man rejected this relationshi in some form or fashion, sin entered the world. Without this free will you would have to assume that God caused us to sin which implies that God sins. In addition, we would then have no free will and be merely appendages of the God that created us.
So why would God cause us to have free will other than the fact that he is a God of love? I believe that God is all knowing and all powerful, therefore, I believe him capable of CHOOSING to surrender some of this power so that we may have free will. It would then make sense as to why Biblically he is so preoccupied with the human race and why he has given his Son to die for us. In short, this surrender of power in terms of our will is the only aspect of the emense universe that he does not have direct control over. It is, therefore, the greatest point of interest. Any other endevour is like playing tic tac toe with yourself.
1 edit
Originally posted by zafartimeI did read your post fully, and I think you're confused. The opening poster is asking why does God allow very small children to suffer and die. That's not the same as asking why does God give us free will. I realize you think that in answering the latter you are somehow answering the former, but I think you are wrong on that account. If a neonate suffers and dies with some medical condition, I see no reason to think its explanation has anything genuine to do with the subject of human free will. Somehow you think you can just drop the phrase 'free will' and I'm just supposed to think that you are addressing explanation of natural illness, but that really doesn't make any sense to me.
if you read my post above fully you should see how I arrived at that question.
If you really want to tell me that a neonate's suffering and dying with some medical condition is linked in some circuitous way with human free will; well okay, I guess have it your way, but that does nothing to confront the dilemma at hand. That only pushes the question back to why would God allow this bizarre, confounding relationship to hold: why would God allow it to be that such instances of neonatal suffering and death are somehow (in some bizarre circuitous way) brought about by the free will of the neonate's forebears? Do you really think that if God prevented this neonate from suffering that human free will would somehow suffer for it? I don't see how: God could have prevented this suffering and still have provided for everything that is really relevant to the subject of human free will.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyAgain, what does extolling the virtues of free will really have to do with the question at hand?
The Bible paints an image of an awesome and somewhat mysterious God that seems somewhat aloof at times but at the same time one that loves us enough to send us his Son to die for us in order for us to have relations with him once again.
As for why children have to die, we all have to die at some point no matter our age. This fate was sealed when man fel e greatest point of interest. Any other endevour is like playing tic tac toe with yourself.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI had at one time, but I forgot. But really, the name of the place does not matter. Many christians believe in some final destination for the saved - a heaven or new world - without sin. Whatever you choose to call it, the question remains - why didn't God just create that place at the start?
I suppose you have not read about the end of the millenial reign then, eh?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitThis is why I like SwissGambit's posts.
I had at one time, but I forgot. But really, the name of the place does not matter. Many christians believe in some final destination for the saved - a heaven or new world - without sin. Whatever you choose to call it, the question remains - why didn't God just create that place at the start?
This is a basic theological question. It's not intended to be a slam or a refutation or be anti-Christian or whatever - it's just simply a theological question that deserves an answer.
It's like the transporter on Star Trek - if you have a device that is transmitting individual molecules like the transporter is, why aren't you using that in sick bay? Do you realize what can be corrected in human illnesses with a functioning transporter??
1 edit
Originally posted by Lord SharkAlthough he has admitted that he doesn't know, that admission does not equate to the answer being inscrubtable. God's ways are above our ways, to be certain. However, this simple query has been responded to time and again.
And that, as far as I'm concerned, is a response that has integrity.
It is not that the answer is unavailable--- it's more a case that those who ask the question don't really want the truth.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhy don't you go ahead and flesh it out for those who do really want the truth.
Although he has admitted that he doesn't know, that admission does not equate to the answer being inscrubtable. God's ways are above our ways, to be certain. However, this simple query has been responded to time and again.
It is not that the answer is unavailable--- it's more a case that those who ask the question don't really want the truth.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI disagree that the response given, time and agan, has been adequate. For example the free will argument given above on this thread is full of holes, but when they were pointed out, no adequate defense was offered.
Although he has admitted that he doesn't know, that admission does not equate to the answer being inscrubtable. God's ways are above our ways, to be certain. However, this simple query has been responded to time and again.
It is not that the answer is unavailable--- it's more a case that those who ask the question don't really want the truth.
1 edit
Originally posted by BadwaterIn one episode, they discovered that the transporter could make people young again. And yet there was no excitement over this new path to immortality.
It's like the transporter on Star Trek - if you have a device that is transmitting individual molecules like the transporter is, why aren't you using that in sick bay? Do you realize what can be corrected in human illnesses with a functioning transporter??
1 edit
Originally posted by Badwater======================================
This is why I like SwissGambit's posts.
This is a basic theological question. It's not intended to be a slam or a refutation or be anti-Christian or whatever - it's just simply a theological question that deserves an answer.
It's like the transporter on Star Trek - if you have a device that is transmitting individual molecules like the transporter is, y? Do you realize what can be corrected in human illnesses with a functioning transporter??
Many christians believe in some final destination for the saved - a heaven or new world - without sin. Whatever you choose to call it, the question remains - why didn't God just create that place at the start?
=======================================
That is a difficult question. I don't know the answer for certain. I will attempt an opinion. I think He did create a paradise in the very ancient past.
Perhaps allowing the coming into existence of a being like Satan was a way for God to collect together into one "container" all the created beings with free wills, who would not want to have anything to do with their Creator.
Perhaps God used this one as a means to gather up in one bundle alll creatures He would ever make who chose not to want God their Creator.
Such beings from His creative act need to have their own place. There they will be forever with their leader under judgment because of thier sins.
Having left the Source of truth they could not BUT commit sins. And because God is righteous they cannot but be judged for those sins.
I was in the goup too until the mercy of God enabled me to receive Jesus the Savior.
Originally posted by LemonJelloTime, time and time again this answer has been put forward. It's kind of like the kids yelling from the back seat: "Are we there yet?" Only in this case, we've been there since before they started asking.
Why don't you go ahead and flesh it out for those who do really want the truth.