• makayla harris
    1
    In this post, I will discuss the problematic nature of viewing God as a figure interacting with our lives. While it is easy for many Christians to make blatant statements such as "God has a plan for me, and everything will work out because of that," it is not always the case that one's life will work out perfectly according to 'God's plan.'

    I have one question for theists: How can you believe God had a purpose in saving one person from suffering but no purpose in letting another's suffering continue?

    Argument layout:
    In the Christian view, God saves us from our suffering.
    When God is not saving us from our suffering, They [God] are allowing it to continue.
    One would never inflict unnecessary suffering upon someone they loved.
    In Chrisianity, God loves everyone.
    Thus, Christianity is false.

    Let's take the example of a plane crash. If one person survives the crash, Christians are quick to exclaim that it was God who has saved this person. They make remarks such as, "God had a purpose for this person! God saved them for a reason!" But by stating that God had a purpose in saving this one person, it is also implied that God had a purpose in the death of everyone else on the plane.

    Similarly, if a child is saved from an awful situation such as abuse, the Christian is quick to say it was God who saved this child from their suffering. Does that mean that it is also God who allowed them to suffer in the first place? Christians often rebuttal that it was the perpetrator's agency and free will responsible for such horrible actions. But what about the child in this situation? It surely was not their agency or free will that put them in a situation of great suffering. It is contradictory to state that God saved one from suffering without also stating that the suffering inflicted upon one was simultaneously God's responsibility. If it is God who is saving us, then it is also God who is hurting us--and that is just devilish.
  • Tom Storm
    9k
    Argument layout:
    In the Christian view, God saves us from our suffering.
    When God is not saving us from our suffering, They [God] are allowing it to continue.
    One would never inflict unnecessary suffering upon someone they loved.
    In Chrisianity, God loves everyone.
    Thus, Christianity is false.
    makayla harris

    I don't think these premises are all that strong, to be honest. The conclusion at best would be that God may be different in nature than some versions of Christianity would have us believe.

    Take your first premise. In the Christian view God might save us form suffering. But this is not a given. Look what happened to his son. Many expressions of Christianity are predicated on the virtue found in suffering and poverty. The suffering - if it ends - happens through salvation after death. Suffering affords Christians the chance to be better people, to test their faith and to provide charity and it is a part of God's ineffable plan.

    But your broader point, which is commonly stated by skeptics is this - why does an all good, all knowing, all loving God allow innocent people (especially children) to suffer and die in their millions?

    This might demonstrate some contractions (but not disprove) in a literalist, fundamentalist version of the Christian god. But that's not a difficult thing.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    God had a purpose for this person! God saved them for a reason!makayla harris

    :rofl:
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k


    Self-serving bias? You atrribute the good that happens to you to your own astounding abilities, but if things start going sideways, it isn't you, it's bad luck!

    God's responsible for your happy moments; you're responsible for the rest of your life which is one big mess!
  • SolarWind
    207
    But your broader point, which is commonly stated by skeptics is this - why does an all good, all knowing, all loving God allow innocent people (especially children) to suffer and die in their millions?

    This might demonstrate some contractions (but not disprove) in a literalist, fundamentalist version of the Christian god. But that's not a difficult thing.
    Tom Storm

    This is a very very difficult thing for an aaa god.
  • Heracloitus
    499
    'Saved' has nothing to do with favourable outcome in a particular circumstance. Even most Christians don't mean it that way.
  • javi2541997
    5.7k
    Argument layout:
    In the Christian view, God saves us from our suffering.
    When God is not saving us from our suffering, They [God] are allowing it to continue.
    One would never inflict unnecessary suffering upon someone they loved.
    In Chrisianity, God loves everyone.
    Thus, Christianity is false.
    makayla harris

    My argument from a Kierkegaardian point of view:
    You have to accept suffering. A human being suffers along their way because is one of the most stimulus we live on.
    Instead of being "saved" from suffering, you just live according to it. Making subterfuges trying to avoid it, could be unnecessary.
    There is no proof that God "loves" us, then you cannot put in their shoulders our weaknesses, as suffering or uncertainty.

    Why did you say Christianity is false?
  • lish
    9
    Hi Makayla,

    First off, thank you for sharing.

    You made some excellent points; however, I have a few objections. My first aims at the validity of the argument. You claimed, “One would never inflict unnecessary suffering upon someone they loved.” However, the word ‘unnecessary’ is not used any other time you use the word suffering. As a result, I find it safe to assume that you mean both necessary and unnecessary suffering when you speak of suffering in the other premises. If that is the case, I can say: one would inflict necessary suffering upon a person they love. At this point, I can conclude that there is no contradiction between God simultaneously loving humans and causing them to suffer. As a result of these concerns, the conclusion that Christianity is false does not follow. I do think, however, your argument can be adjusted. Here is my proposal.

    If Christianity is true, then God loves everybody.
    If God allows unnecessary suffering, then God does not love everybody.
    God allows unnecessary suffering.
    God does not love everybody. (MP 2,3)
    Therefore, Christianity is false. (MT 1, 4)

    This argument has the same conclusion; however, it explicitly asserts that God allows unnecessary suffering rather than any suffering. Another way to adjust the argument is by simply removing the word unnecessary from premises 2 and 3. The question you have to ask yourself is this: Can one inflict necessary suffering on a person they love? If the answer is yes, you need the word unnecessary in premises 2 and 3; if the answer is no, you can remove the word unnecessary. I encourage you to keep the unnecessary, and I will explain why. Premise 2 of that argument would say If God allows suffering, then God does not love everybody. I give the objection that God can allow necessary suffering and still love people. To start, it seems that if something is needed then it should be allowed and in fact obligatory. Necessary in this sense means required to contribute or sustain overall goodness. When one loves another person, they want to contribute and maintain their overall goodness. If there was a case where a person must suffer to sustain or contribute to overall goodness, then a person who loves that person should allow them to suffer. For example, if an alcoholic is suffering major withdrawals, the suffering will contribute to overall goodness in that person's life. It follows that a person who loves the alcoholic should not give them more alcohol but rather allow them to suffer so they can live a better life. God acts in this way as well; he allows people to suffer because it is necessary for promoting their flourishment. For these reasons, I think it is best to include the word unnecessary in your premises. However, that begs the question of whether or not God does allow unnecessary suffering or if all suffering leads to promoting our goodness? I will leave you with that question to ponder.
  • Tom Storm
    9k
    If God allows unnecessary suffering, then God does not love everybody.lish

    Can you demonstrate that any suffering is unnecessary from god's perspective? How could people determine god's intended business?
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    Argument layout:
    In the Christian view, God saves us from our suffering.
    When God is not saving us from our suffering, They [God] are allowing it to continue.
    One would never inflict unnecessary suffering upon someone they loved.
    In Chrisianity, God loves everyone.
    Thus, Christianity is false.
    makayla harris

    The "problem of evil" argument is one that gets used here often. I don't find it very convincing. Who the heck knows why God does what it does? Unless I am a fundamentalist, why would I think that people who think they know what God thinks or what God wants are right? Everyone, every religion, knows that suffering and death are part of our lives. Even so, the world is a wonderful place.

    To be clear, I am not a follower of any religion.
  • T Clark
    13.7k


    Forgot - Welcome to the forum.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.