Why does God cause suffering?

[stevencarrwork]

I think Peter Kreeft explained best why God causes suffering.

Peter Kreeft, Boston College philosophy professor, provides an analogy of short-range pain resulting in long-range good: “Imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy, wants to liberate him. He tries to win the bear’s confidence but he can’t do it, so he has to shoot the bear full of drugs.

The bear, however, thinks this is an attack and that the hunter is trying to kill him. He doesn’t realize that this is being done out of compassion. “Then, in order to get the bear out of the trap, the hunter has to push him further into the trap to release the tension on the spring.

If the bear were semiconscious at that point, he would be even more convinced that the hunter was his enemy who was out to cause him suffering and pain. But the bear would be wrong. He reaches this incorrect conclusion because he’s not a human being.”

I quoted from http://dialogue.adventist.org/articl...grimsley_e.htm

So now we know why God causes suffering.

I wonder why God allows animals to suffer in traps, when a good God would release them from the trap. After all, the whole point of the analogy is that it is a good thing to release animals from traps.

God though, lets animals die in traps.

Perhaps this would be a better analogy :-

“Imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy, wants to liberate him. He tries to win the bear’s confidence but he can’t do it, so he lets the bear rot in Hell.'

[JackC]

I think Peter Kreeft explained best why God causes suffering.

Peter Kreeft, Boston College philosophy professor, provides an analogy of short-range pain resulting in long-range good: “Imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy, wants to liberate him. He tries to win the bear’s confidence but he can’t do it, so he has to shoot the bear full of drugs.

The bear, however, thinks this is an attack and that the hunter is trying to kill him. He doesn’t realize that this is being done out of compassion. “Then, in order to get the bear out of the trap, the hunter has to push him further into the trap to release the tension on the spring.

If the bear were semiconscious at that point, he would be even more convinced that the hunter was his enemy who was out to cause him suffering and pain. But the bear would be wrong. He reaches this incorrect conclusion because he’s not a human being.”

I quoted from http://dialogue.adventist.org/articl...grimsley_e.htm

So now we know why God causes suffering.

I wonder why God allows animals to suffer in traps, when a good God would release them from the trap. After all, the whole point of the analogy is that it is a good thing to release animals from traps.

God though, lets animals die in traps.

Perhaps this would be a better analogy :-

“Imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy, wants to liberate him. He tries to win the bear’s confidence but he can’t do it, so he lets the bear rot in Hell.'

Actually a better analogy is of a bear who is born in a trap. The trap is all it knows and so for the bear, the trap and its suffering is the best there is.

Then a brother comes along and seeks to set the bear free from its suffering in the trap.

He first tries to win the bear's confidence, but cannot because the bear sees anything outside of his world in the trap as dangerous, something to fear and avoid at all costs. The so the bear comes to not only fear his potential redeemer, but also freedom, and so freely chooses to remain in its suffering.

The brother is able to see that drugging the bear to set it free would not work. For as soon as the drugs wore off, the bear in fear would flee from the prospect of freedom, seeking to return to the comfort of the trap.

And so the brother comes into the trap with the bear, telling it stories of freedom, trying to convince it that its world is merely a trap. That the bear must lose his life in the trap, even hate it and everything about it.

But the bear, in fear of the unknown, in fear of true freedom, uses the brother's stories to try to build a better life in the trap, convincing itself that this better life is freedom.

And so the brother leaves the bear in its trap, saddened that it is so lost, so afraid, that freedom for the bear may no longer be possible.





Jack

[Biblischism]

I think Peter Kreeft explained best why God causes suffering.

Peter Kreeft, Boston College philosophy professor, provides an analogy of short-range pain resulting in long-range good: “Imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy, wants to liberate him. He tries to win the bear’s confidence but he can’t do it, so he has to shoot the bear full of drugs.

The bear, however, thinks this is an attack and that the hunter is trying to kill him. He doesn’t realize that this is being done out of compassion. “Then, in order to get the bear out of the trap, the hunter has to push him further into the trap to release the tension on the spring.

If the bear were semiconscious at that point, he would be even more convinced that the hunter was his enemy who was out to cause him suffering and pain. But the bear would be wrong. He reaches this incorrect conclusion because he’s not a human being.”

I quoted from http://dialogue.adventist.org/articl...grimsley_e.htm

So now we know why God causes suffering.

I wonder why God allows animals to suffer in traps, when a good God would release them from the trap. After all, the whole point of the analogy is that it is a good thing to release animals from traps.

God though, lets animals die in traps.

Perhaps this would be a better analogy :-

“Imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy, wants to liberate him. He tries to win the bear’s confidence but he can’t do it, so he lets the bear rot in Hell.'

I'm getting really bored with your unimaginative theodicy-related objections to Christian theism.

Of all the objections that are available for you to question the veracity of the Bible--and there are COUNTLESS--you choose of all things suffering?

LOL. God doesn't save bears caught in animal traps. Oh my. Mommy, make the bad man stop!

[salvationfound]

So now we know why God causes suffering.

I wonder why God allows animals to suffer in traps, when a good God would release them from the trap. After all, the whole point of the analogy is that it is a good thing to release animals from traps.

God though, lets animals die in traps.

Ok so God should always release someone from a trap. So what does this
look like? Are you saying God should not allow death of any kind? Or are you
saying God should not allow people to be caught in bear traps?
You say God should release animals from traps, ok then I have to ask what
does this look like? Be specific.

Perhaps this would be a better analogy :-

“Imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy, wants to liberate him. He tries to win the bear’s confidence but he can’t do it, so he lets the bear rot in Hell.'

What about this analogy: A bear trapped and a hunter who offers him a way
to escape but the bear refuses so the hunter says, "fine your on your own
just don't come crying to me what happens to you from here cause from here
on in your completely on your own". Hell to the Christian is God no longer
shielding you and you completely on your own. Hell to the Christian is not
God actively torturing someone like Keiffer Sutherland on 24. After all, how
can God be separated from someone as the Bible says if he's the one doing
the torturing?

[stevencarrwork]

I'm getting really bored with your unimaginative theodicy-related objections to Christian theism.

Of all the objections that are available for you to question the veracity of the Bible--and there are COUNTLESS--you choose of all things suffering?

LOL. God doesn't save bears caught in animal traps. Oh my. Mommy, make the bad man stop!

It was Kreeft's analogy, not mine.

His analogy means that a good God would save miners trapped in a mine.

God lets people be trapped when earthquakes happen or when a mine collapses.

Kreeft claims a good being would rescue something caught in a trap.

Therefore, there is no good being , as people die when trapped in earthquakes, mines, collapsed buildings etc.

[Biblischism]

It was Kreeft's analogy, not mine.

His analogy means that a good God would save miners trapped in a mine.

God lets people be trapped when earthquakes happen or when a mine collapses.

Kreeft claims a good being would rescue something caught in a trap.

Therefore, there is no good being , as people die when trapped in earthquakes, mines, collapsed buildings etc.

Yes, it's Kreeft's big idea, I know. He's very innovative. LOL.

So God rescues some "bears" in "traps" while leaving most of them to die. Big deal. It's basically another re-hash of the wimpy "because people suffer, a good God must not exist" argument.

It's boring. It bores the apologists that are regulars in this forum, and it bores the most enlightened skeptics here.

With the plethora of biblical problems before you, why you'd choose another variation of general theodicy to demonstrate the problem of biblical theism (particularly by Peter "Infanticide Is Cool but Leave My Pets Alone" Kreeft, no less!) is beyond me.

I say try again.

[stevencarrwork]

Yes, it's Kreeft's big idea, I know. He's very innovative. LOL.

So God rescues some "bears" in "traps" while leaving most of them to die. Big deal. It's basically another re-hash of the wimpy "because people suffer, a good God must not exist" argument.

It's boring. It bores the apologists that are regulars in this forum, and it bores the most enlightened skeptics here.

I'm sorry if you are bored by the idea of children being trapped in a burning house, crying out to God for help and being burned alive, when God does not heed their cries.

But I hope you will forgive those of use who think that the child's Heavely Father should rescue a child from the flames, just as its earthly father would.

[Biblischism]

I'm sorry if you are bored by the idea of children being trapped in a burning house, crying out to God for help and being burned alive, when God does not heed their cries.

But I hope you will forgive those of use who think that the child's Heavely Father should rescue a child from the flames, just as its earthly father would.

You sound like a Christian utopist. You merely want your Heaven here and now.

So if all were spared the fire of a burning house, and not one of us died in a meat grinder at the factory, etc., you'd believe in the God of the Bible and not have any further childish Disneyland expectations of Him?

If all were spared an agonizing death but Jesus, would you still argue that a good God could not exist because Jesus was tortured and crucified?

It is a lame argument, frought with problems.

Better be more specific.

In the Bible

* Cattle disappear from plagues then re-emerge.

* Moses must counsel God before He commits rash actions.

* Male babies are shish-kebobbed by Jewish guerillas while their sisters are spared to be human incubators.

* Paul says that woman must not only refrain from teaching but also be quiet in church. Why?

Because she was created AFTER Adam.

This is only a small sampling. It has nothing to do with my not caring about little ones who burn in house fires but everything to do with specific biblical examples of such tragedies that are, according to biblical authors, God-ordered.

In other words, such a general observation as Kreeft's (who advocates infanticide, BTW) is not at all compelling. That's all I'm saying.

[Zxcv Bnm]

Certainly not everybody finds the same arguments compelling, but to answer the title of this thread, "Why does God cause suffering?", one needs only to read the story of the fall of man in the Genesis:

To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' Cursed is the ground because of you...." (Genesis 3)

The curse on the earth, and the suffering of man, is God's judgement against man's disobedience of God; the curse brought because of sin remains in this world even today.

[Mountain Man]

I'm sorry if you are bored by the idea of children being trapped in a burning house, crying out to God for help and being burned alive, when God does not heed their cries.

But I hope you will forgive those of use who think that the child's Heavely Father should rescue a child from the flames, just as its earthly father would.

Except that unlike God, an earthly father can't save the children by letting them die and ushering them into the paradise of heaven. As I told Doubting John in a similiar thread, death is only unjust to those whose only hope is bound to this life.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

There can be no doubt God allows suffering to take place. He's allowed me to read Stevie's thread after all.

[Rationalist]

Actually a better analogy is of a bear who is born in a trap. The trap is all it knows and so for the bear, the trap and its suffering is the best there is.

Then a brother comes along and seeks to set the bear free from its suffering in the trap.

He first tries to win the bear's confidence, but cannot because the bear sees anything outside of his world in the trap as dangerous, something to fear and avoid at all costs. The so the bear comes to not only fear his potential redeemer, but also freedom, and so freely chooses to remain in its suffering.

The brother is able to see that drugging the bear to set it free would not work. For as soon as the drugs wore off, the bear in fear would flee from the prospect of freedom, seeking to return to the comfort of the trap.

And so the brother comes into the trap with the bear, telling it stories of freedom, trying to convince it that its world is merely a trap. That the bear must lose his life in the trap, even hate it and everything about it.

But the bear, in fear of the unknown, in fear of true freedom, uses the brother's stories to try to build a better life in the trap, convincing itself that this better life is freedom.

And so the brother leaves the bear in its trap, saddened that it is so lost, so afraid, that freedom for the bear may no longer be possible.

Good analogy. It's too bad that people can't see that there is an entire world waiting for them outside of their religion if they'd only take their nose out of the Bible.

[FrankWalton]

Hey stevie,

First off, I seriously doubt you're looking for an answer, seeing how you're a known troll, but let's see...

I think Peter Kreeft explained best why God causes suffering.

Peter Kreeft, Boston College philosophy professor, provides an analogy of short-range pain resulting in long-range good: “Imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy, wants to liberate him. He tries to win the bear’s confidence but he can’t do it, so he has to shoot the bear full of drugs.

The bear, however, thinks this is an attack and that the hunter is trying to kill him. He doesn’t realize that this is being done out of compassion. “Then, in order to get the bear out of the trap, the hunter has to push him further into the trap to release the tension on the spring.

If the bear were semiconscious at that point, he would be even more convinced that the hunter was his enemy who was out to cause him suffering and pain. But the bear would be wrong. He reaches this incorrect conclusion because he’s not a human being.”

I quoted from http://dialogue.adventist.org/articl...grimsley_e.htm

As a scholar a better thing to do is to actually look up the source of the quote. It actually comes from Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith where he interviews Peter Kreeft.

So now we know why God causes suffering.

Well, like I said you have to look up the source to get a better context. On the same page that the link sourced, Kreeft said, "How can a mere finite human be sure that infinite wisdom would not tolerate certain short-range evils in order for more long-range goods that we couldn't foresee?" God has a sufficient reason for allowing evil, steve.

I wonder why God allows animals to suffer in traps, when a good God would release them from the trap. After all, the whole point of the analogy is that it is a good thing to release animals from traps.

As we've seen that's not necessarily the case. Yup, I was right, you really weren't honestly looking for an answer.

God though, lets animals die in traps.

As he let's people die, too.

Perhaps this would be a better analogy :-

“Imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy, wants to liberate him. He tries to win the bear’s confidence but he can’t do it, so he lets the bear rot in Hell.'

Strawman. Now you're talking about salvation.

But realize, you haven't even responded to Kreeft's premise. This goes to show that you don't have an answer. I would argue it's because atheists have no answer to the problem of evil or suffering.

Anyway, the problem of evil (or suffering if you will) is not a problem for theists if God has a sufficient reason for allowing evil (I recommend you read atheist Michael Martin's works where he concedes that the problem of evil is not a problem for theists). Instead of accepting that, atheists like stevencarrepair revert to strawmen arguments. Typical.

[Rationalist]

Anyway, the problem of evil (or suffering if you will) is not a problem for theists if God has a sufficient reason for allowing evil (I recommend you read atheist Michael Martin's works where he concedes that the problem of evil is not a problem for theists). Instead of accepting that, atheists like stevencarrepair revert to strawmen arguments. Typical.

How would one ever know that God has sufficient reason for allowing evil?

For example if I were to kick a kitten, and you were to tell me to stop because it was wrong, I could simply say that it was really for the kitten's own good, but you simply would never be able to understand why. If you can exonerate God for the suffering and evil he commits without proper justification, you must also accept my claim that my kicking kittens is all for the best as well.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Who says that God causes suffering?

That makes no sense in a worldview that has freewill as its basis. We are the cause of our own suffering, pretty much all the time.