Discussion:
Would you like God to change?
(too old to reply)
Jacob
2006-09-18 01:38:39 UTC
Permalink
"If God is so loving and almighty why does He allow so much suffering
in this world? If He loves me why isn't He answering my prayers?"
Questions like these are very common, coming up from people when they
cannot understand God. We all have many questions concerning God, and
especially when we are going through some difficulty such questions
take on extra forcefulness. These questions may come up because we are
confused, or because we are dissatisfied with the way God is. As His
children we instinctively know that we are not supposed to be
dissatisfied with Him. But we can't seem to stop such thoughts from
coming up.

It is not only about God. Even the thoughts about the people we live
with or deal with can be in the same way. We are unhappy with the way
they are, and we wish they would be different. Many people's prayers
are full of petitions to God to change these other people. They keep
waiting for the change, and after some time they begin to get upset
with God for not answering them quickly.

What does God have to say about this? "Be still, and know that I am
God" (Ps.46:10). He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the
end, the same yesterday, today and forever, from everlasting times
(Re.1:8;He.13:8). Do we really want Him to change? Isn't the problem
really with us, that we don't understand Him well enough? We don't
really imagine that there could be anything wrong with Him where He has
to change, do we? We have to change in our thinking and our responses.
We have to recognise how God is and change our ways to fit in with His.


It is of course not quite the same when it comes to people. People have
their faults, and there is nothing wrong in wanting them to change. It
is good and right to pray for them too, though not in a spirit of
complaining but love. But while we wait for them to change, don't we
need to make some changes ourselves?

Perhaps we need to work at 'accepting' them as they are, with their
faults, in order to make sure that our response to them remains loving
and non-judgmental. This 'acceptance' can go a long way in helping them
to change! If they find us being critical or taking a 'holier than you'
attitude, will that not drive them farther away?

Many times when our mind is focussed on someone else's faults we become
more blind than usual to our own faults. Even though we proclaim
doctrinally that we are just sinners saved by grace, our attitude and
behaviour at such times tend to be high minded. Let us work on putting
on an attitude of humility, in our thoughts about God and other people.

http://www.c-n-c.org
d***@ntlworld.com
2006-09-20 05:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jacob
"If God is so loving and almighty why does He allow so much suffering
in this world? If He loves me why isn't He answering my prayers?"
Questions like these are very common, coming up from people when they
cannot understand God.
No, these questions come because they are totally valid and legitimate,
and to date, not answered convincingly by Christian apologetics. Let's
have your answer to this question you cited, that you consider is only
asked by those of us who do 'not understand God':

If God is so loving and almighty, why does He allow so much suffering
in this world?

Let's hear it, because this question represents a contradiction that
renders God non-existent
B.G. Kent
2006-09-21 03:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@ntlworld.com
If God is so loving and almighty, why does He allow so much suffering
in this world?
Let's hear it, because this question represents a contradiction that
renders God non-existent
B - How can you learn to speak if you have someone constantly speaking for
you?

Blessings
Bren
Chellie
2006-09-25 04:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by B.G. Kent
Post by d***@ntlworld.com
If God is so loving and almighty, why does He allow so much suffering
in this world?
Let's hear it, because this question represents a contradiction that
renders God non-existent
B - How can you learn to speak if you have someone constantly speaking for
you?
Blessings
Bren
No, I won't want God to change. I like Him the way He is. You question
why there is so much suffering. Matthew 5:14 says "the rains falls on
the just and unjust". So yes while we are on this Earth we are going to
suffer. The main question is: would you rather suffer on Earth, serve
God correctly and then obtain eternal life with Him or suffer on the
Earth, don't really know God, die and go to hell? I pick the former.
r***@yahoo.com
2006-09-25 04:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@ntlworld.com
If God is so loving and almighty, why does He allow so much suffering
in this world?
Let's hear it, because this question represents a contradiction that
renders God non-existent
Hi Dave,

It's been awhile since I've seen any posting by you. I had sort of
assumed that you moved on. Then again I haven't been paying as much
attention as I used to either, so perhaps you have been posting and I
just missed it.
Anyways, nice to have you back [or still here..... or, well to hear
from you again!].

I know this has been a recurring theme for you, but there is no real
contradiction.
As has been stated too many times now, the basic answer is free will.
If God is going to create independent creatures, then they must by
definition be free. And if they are free, then they are free to do
right or wrong.
Now I know that the so-called "natural evil" is a big issue for you
as well, but again, it's only a problem when you operate on
non-biblical assumptions.

What do I mean by that?
Let's say we consider the issue under the assumption that God, being
loving, must not want anything bad to happen to his creation. We
therefore conclude given that particular nature of God, and the fact
that Gods' creation does suffer bad things, either God is not of that
particular nature or he doesn't really exist.

Now you have chosen the second. Supposing that God had a nature as you
have defined, and the reality of bad things happening, therefore God
cannot exist.
But the problem is that God does not have the nature you have proposed.
And I know that from the Bible itself. From the bible we learn that God
not only allows, but even occasionally causes bad things to happen.

And you may reply that He is certainly not a loving God then. To which
I will reply that being loving also means that he will hate certain
things. God will hate the things that violate love. God has ordained an
order, and man has violated that order. There are grave consequences to
that rebellion and therefore God has no interest in maintaining the
status quo as it exists today. That means that maintaining the comfort
level of creation in its current state is NOT on Gods agenda. Bringing
creation to a realization of its current state IS on Gods agenda.

The contradiction only exists when one assumes that God's love
translates to a desire to maintain the current state of creation. And
the bible clearly contradicts that.

So the problem of evil may render your presupposed god non-existent,
but it doesn't touch the God of the bible.
Gordon
2006-09-26 00:40:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@ntlworld.com
Post by Jacob
"If God is so loving and almighty why does He allow so much suffering
in this world? If He loves me why isn't He answering my prayers?"
Questions like these are very common, coming up from people when they
cannot understand God.
No, these questions come because they are totally valid and legitimate,
and to date, not answered convincingly by Christian apologetics. Let's
have your answer to this question you cited, that you consider is only
If God is so loving and almighty, why does He allow so much suffering
in this world?
Let's hear it, because this question represents a contradiction that
renders God non-existent
The first two chapters of the Book of Job gives a very clear
insight into this realm of questions. Read the book of Job as a
parable. Job and his family represent God's true people. Job's
friends are those people who are basically okay by human
standards, but not quite on the right track with God. Then those
who killed Job's family and servants then robbed Job of his
possessions are those who are clearly separate and apart from
God, and therefore at Satan's command.

God has consented to let Satan run his agenda, within limits, and
this process will get sin and rebellion out of the way, forever,
when this is completed.

Gordon
d***@ntlworld.com
2006-09-26 00:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@yahoo.com
Hi Dave,
It's been awhile since I've seen any posting by you. I had sort of
assumed that you moved on. Then again I haven't been paying as much
attention as I used to either, so perhaps you have been posting and I
just missed it.
Anyways, nice to have you back [or still here..... or, well to hear
from you again!].
Nice of you to say so! Anyway, yes, I have been 'away', i.e. not
posting here, because I have been posting on Atheism versus
Christianity, where there is a healthy cross-section of
correspondents....I felt a little outnumbered here and included were
many persons, like Matthew Johnson, who think they know what they are
talking about (and indeed are very learned and well-read) but tended to
ignore my arguments as if they were somehow naive when they were very
reasonable. I have come back because I had a look, saw the same old
stuff and realised that no-one has ever satisfactorily addressed this
Post by r***@yahoo.com
I know this has been a recurring theme for you, but there is no real
contradiction.
As has been stated too many times now, the basic answer is free will.
If God is going to create independent creatures, then they must by
definition be free. And if they are free, then they are free to do
right or wrong.
But how exactly does this explain a little girl with cystic fibrosis,
or one of those babies with eczema who need mitts on them to stop them
scratching? How do these conditions have anything to do with freewill?
Post by r***@yahoo.com
God will hate the things that violate love. God has ordained an
order, and man has violated that order. There are grave consequences to
that rebellion and therefore God has no interest in maintaining the
status quo as it exists today. That means that maintaining the comfort
level of creation in its current state is NOT on Gods agenda. Bringing
creation to a realization of its current state IS on Gods agenda.
And how does a little girl with cystic fibrosis help achieve God's
Agenda? God is all-powerful, and even accepting that God foresaw Adam's
fall and let it happen anyway, could have designated ways to bring
mankind to realisation of His agenda which do NOT include letting
innocents suffer needlessly. True Love would find a way without that
and the million other examples I could have used. Are you manintaining
the soul-building argument or the punishment (cruel to be kind)
argument?
d***@ntlworld.com
2006-09-27 03:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
God has consented to let Satan run his agenda, within limits, and
this process will get sin and rebellion out of the way, forever,
when this is completed.
Gordon
This may be the conclusion reached from a reading of Job, but as I
contend that there is a strong chance that Job, like the rest of the
Bible, is man's creative imagination at work, we have to look at the
logic of the conclusion rather than blindly accept it. You say that God
has given Satan free rein to run his own agenda. This is no different
from a gang boss getting his underlings to do his dirty work for him.
By allowing, God is condoning. The story of Job, in other words, does
not get God off the hook.
r***@yahoo.com
2006-09-27 03:37:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@ntlworld.com
Post by r***@yahoo.com
God will hate the things that violate love. God has ordained an
order, and man has violated that order. There are grave consequences to
that rebellion and therefore God has no interest in maintaining the
status quo as it exists today. That means that maintaining the comfort
level of creation in its current state is NOT on Gods agenda. Bringing
creation to a realization of its current state IS on Gods agenda.
And how does a little girl with cystic fibrosis help achieve God's
Agenda? God is all-powerful, and even accepting that God foresaw Adam's
fall and let it happen anyway, could have designated ways to bring
mankind to realisation of His agenda which do NOT include letting
innocents suffer needlessly. True Love would find a way without that
and the million other examples I could have used. Are you manintaining
the soul-building argument or the punishment (cruel to be kind)
argument?
The fact that there are things wrong [cystic fibrosis or other diseases
or natural disasters or whatever] with life in its current state IS the
thing that causes people to realize there is something wrong with life
in its current state. IF God were to protect us from the consequences
of our fallen state, then we don't come to the realization that we
are in a fallen state.

As to why a particular little girl has to go through a particular thing
is, I think anyone would have to agree, pretty much unknowable. But I
don't think it has to do with either soul-building, or punishment,
though I suppose those things are at work in some instances. Rather it
is that creation is under a curse in general, and it plays out as is. I
don't think God says: hey I'm going to afflict this little girl
with cystic fibrosis. She is born into circumstances where it happened,
but it is not necessarily a divine decree.

But I'm not sure that at this point in the conjecture; I really see
anything that renders God non-existent. Tough to understand, but not
contradictory. At this point it just comes down to a matter of one
feeling like he should do something different. And that is based on how
one considers the attributes. "I think love would never do that!".
Well, OK, but that's not a logic argument rendering God non-existent.
d***@ntlworld.com
2006-09-28 02:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@yahoo.com
As to why a particular little girl has to go through a particular thing
is, I think anyone would have to agree, pretty much unknowable. But I
don't think it has to do with either soul-building, or punishment,
though I suppose those things are at work in some instances. Rather it
is that creation is under a curse in general, and it plays out as is. I
don't think God says: hey I'm going to afflict this little girl
with cystic fibrosis. She is born into circumstances where it happened,
but it is not necessarily a divine decree.
Although technically there is a difference between "decree" and
"acceptance" (i.e. making happen versus tolerating), when it comes to
the divine, the difference is hard to pinpoint. God foresees the girl
is going to be afflicted and has the power to prevent it but doesn't.
The laws of nature and physics, and in this case biology and genetics,
are God's are they not? If there is a curse, that curse is God's,
right? I can't see how you can separate the event from the God who
presides over it, particularly when the event (the cystic fibrosis in
this case) has nothing to do with freewill.

If the 'general curse' is there to make us realise our need for God, I
would make two points - first, God could have adapted his 'curse' to
allow for adversity, or loneliness, or spiritual yearning, without such
distressing diseases as the one I used as an example. Secondly, since
many millions of people live and die without coming to God, or coming
to God in the wrong way via another religion, this is ample proof that
the aim of the curse is unrealised and ineffective
Post by r***@yahoo.com
But I'm not sure that at this point in the conjecture; I really see
anything that renders God non-existent. Tough to understand, but not
contradictory. At this point it just comes down to a matter of one
feeling like he should do something different. And that is based on how
one considers the attributes. "I think love would never do that!".
Well, OK, but that's not a logic argument rendering God non-existent.
OK, I argue for non-existence from the Problem of Evil when feeling
somewhat radical! Most philosophers these days err on the side of
caution, allowing that existence is logically possible - but called
into question in a big way!

Loading...