Problems understanding God - why? (Edited Title)

[carn]

Long ago i understood the reason, why there is now contradiction between a loving, allpowerful, allknowingand non-contradictory God and the suffering in the world at least intuitively.

Why do people have so much problems with this?

To sum it up in my words, it is as if A is willing to erect the perfect city and wants everybody to live with him there, because its a realy cool place and everywhere else is "damned" compared to this city and he realy likes everybody. For the city to be perfect, there must be no crime but also no enforcement of law, cause both are marks of an imperfect society (the former the more serious one). So A has the problem that if everyone just comes to his city, humans being humans, some will misbehave. Then either crime or law enforcement (or probably both) have to be tolerated and the city is not perfect.

What A needs is his fellow citizens to not commit crimes even if the laws are not enforced or in other word he needs not only good people but (with a wordly meaning) saints. People who in perfect freedom choose freely only the good. Unfortunately those people he wants to actually live with him are mostly not saints but average humans. A might choose to only let saints into his city and the rest be "damned", but he wants everybody in, if possible, so he tries to setup a plan, that as many as possible end up living with him.
So people need to learn to choose in perfect freedom only the good.

Now what certainly does not work is, if A proclaims to everybody in an undeniable way "Here is this real great city and everybody capable of being saintly, which is demonstrated by following rules A-Z can come in." because people then do not learn to choose in freedom good, they learn to avoid breaking rule X, which is of no help when living in the city, because there should be no rules.

On the other hand, he must inform, teach and train his hopefully future citizens, so they can mature and one day live up to the requirements, he must ask of them for the city to be perfect.

But those two constraints are diametral to some extent. If A teaches people, they might find evidence that A exists, his city exists and will want to get there. They will conclude that they have to follo As rules to get there and this will again result in some people just following rules without learning what has to be actually learned. The result for A will be unsatisfactory, although some might still get it, others will get on the wrong track and cannot be admitted.

So A has to put great care into what information he gives out to his potential future citizens to avoid leading some, which might make it, off track. This might include even leaving doubt about his own and the cities existance (because again, people might just follow rules to get there) and this certainly could exclude leaving behind tangible hard evidence behind, which would be equivalent to an open proclamation of As existance and plans. And this could mean, because people observe their surrondings, tolerate some suffering, because if A allievates suffering too often in a noticeable pattern, because people would notice this and might gain evidence about A leading to the undesirable "follow-the-rules because it is beneficial" pattern above.

Frankly of course this might result for the others in being unable to definitely discern whether A exist or not, at least if they only analyze hard evidence, but for As goal - opening his city for as many as possible - it might be the best solution.



I guess many people might not see this explanation as sufficient to overcome the problem (and it isn't on itself, because i try to describe by human example what cannot be described by human example) but from this point of view, its pretty hard for me to understand, why people make so much fuss of suffering and Gods supposed qualities. He wants to get as many as possible in his city and in his city he won't be a tyrant, so all admitted should be well behaved and will not be forced by him into anything (least into losing their free will). And making free-willed humans into a bunch of well-behaving free-willed humans quite obviously erquires a plan more complicated than "Here are my laws, if you don't follow them, i will strike you down with lightning."

So where is the exact problem?

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Originally Posted by carn

Long ago i understood the reason, why there is now contradiction between a loving, allpowerful, allknowingand non-contradictory God and the suffering in the world at least intuitively.

Why do people have so much problems with this?

To sum it up in my words, it is as if A is willing to erect the perfect city and wants everybody to live with him there, because its a realy cool place and everywhere else is "damned" compared to this city and he realy likes everybody. For the city to be perfect, there must be no crime but also no enforcement of law, cause both are marks of an imperfect society (the former the more serious one). So A has the problem that if everyone just comes to his city, humans being humans, some will misbehave. Then either crime or law enforcement (or probably both) have to be tolerated and the city is not perfect.

What A needs is his fellow citizens to not commit crimes even if the laws are not enforced or in other word he needs not only good people but (with a wordly meaning) saints. People who in perfect freedom choose freely only the good. Unfortunately those people he wants to actually live with him are mostly not saints but average humans. A might choose to only let saints into his city and the rest be "damned", but he wants everybody in, if possible, so he tries to setup a plan, that as many as possible end up living with him.
So people need to learn to choose in perfect freedom only the good.

Now what certainly does not work is, if A proclaims to everybody in an undeniable way "Here is this real great city and everybody capable of being saintly, which is demonstrated by following rules A-Z can come in." because people then do not learn to choose in freedom good, they learn to avoid breaking rule X, which is of no help when living in the city, because there should be no rules.

On the other hand, he must inform, teach and train his hopefully future citizens, so they can mature and one day live up to the requirements, he must ask of them for the city to be perfect.

But those two constraints are diametral to some extent. If A teaches people, they might find evidence that A exists, his city exists and will want to get there. They will conclude that they have to follo As rules to get there and this will again result in some people just following rules without learning what has to be actually learned. The result for A will be unsatisfactory, although some might still get it, others will get on the wrong track and cannot be admitted.

So A has to put great care into what information he gives out to his potential future citizens to avoid leading some, which might make it, off track. This might include even leaving doubt about his own and the cities existance (because again, people might just follow rules to get there) and this certainly could exclude leaving behind tangible hard evidence behind, which would be equivalent to an open proclamation of As existance and plans. And this could mean, because people observe their surrondings, tolerate some suffering, because if A allievates suffering too often in a noticeable pattern, because people would notice this and might gain evidence about A leading to the undesirable "follow-the-rules because it is beneficial" pattern above.

Frankly of course this might result for the others in being unable to definitely discern whether A exist or not, at least if they only analyze hard evidence, but for As goal - opening his city for as many as possible - it might be the best solution.



I guess many people might not see this explanation as sufficient to overcome the problem (and it isn't on itself, because i try to describe by human example what cannot be described by human example) but from this point of view, its pretty hard for me to understand, why people make so much fuss of suffering and Gods supposed qualities. He wants to get as many as possible in his city and in his city he won't be a tyrant, so all admitted should be well behaved and will not be forced by him into anything (least into losing their free will). And making free-willed humans into a bunch of well-behaving free-willed humans quite obviously erquires a plan more complicated than "Here are my laws, if you don't follow them, i will strike you down with lightning."

So where is the exact problem?

Too long, my mind wandered off.

[fhansen]

The problem for many is the degree of suffering that relatively innocent people often must endure-and the fact that God has the power to stop it. Also, the concept of hell, eternal torment, for not choosing correctly can appear unjust.

St Augustine himself was stymied by the “mystery of evil”-and could resolve the question only by understanding it in the light of the gospel and Gods’ revealed love as contrasted to sin.

IMO, there’s simply much we don’t know now and all earthly suffering will be compensated for immeasurably in the next life-and all will be completely satisfied that justice is done perfectly as regards anyone's final destination.

[BobCatholic]

I look at it this way.

Temporal vs Spiritual

Heaven is a spiritual reality.

Earth is a temporal reality.

The perfect city is Heaven and only the perfect get in there (spiritually) - not a shred of sin.

However, we are living here on planet earth.

We are held responsible for the sin of Adam and Eve in a temporal sense, and thus suffer on this planet during life. We are not held responsible spiritually, because Jesus Christ took care of that.

[Scapegoat]

Originally Posted by fhansen

The problem for many is the degree of suffering that relatively innocent people often must endure-and the fact that God has the power to stop it. Also, the concept of hell, eternal torment, for not choosing correctly can appear unjust.

St Augustine himself was stymied by the “mystery of evil”-and could resolve the question only by understanding it in the light of the gospel and Gods’ revealed love as contrasted to sin.

IMO, there’s simply much we don’t know now and all earthly suffering will be compensated for immeasurably in the next life-and all will be completely satisfied that justice is done perfectly as regards anyone's final destination.

I think the problem comes from people thinking suffering is intrinsically evil. I personally do not think of suffering as either being good or evil, but rather being something which is either wasted or utilized. Some say suffering is evil by giving examples of horrible things like rape, and even though I believe the rape itself is evil; I don't believe the suffering -which is the byproduct of the rape- is evil. I don't believe this because the suffering if utilized correclty can help the victim overcome their traumatic experience and heal themselves. I personally have heard multiple people say the suffering caused by their traumatic experience gave them the opportunity to grow in ways they never thought possible. I think the healing affect suffering gives us from things like working out, doing the right thing, etc. is the same type of healing that can occur even in the midst of more traumatic circumstances like a rape, murder, and etc.

I think this is why Christians are called to join their sufferings with Christ's; since by His wounds we are heald.

[mdcpensive1]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

Too long, my mind wandered off.

I understand. If you want to read an encyclical the important stuff is the first and last paragraph.

[WesleyF]

Originally Posted by carn

So A has the problem that if everyone just comes to his city, humans being humans, some will misbehave. Then either crime or law enforcement (or probably both) have to be tolerated and the city is not perfect.

That is rendered impossible because of the Catholic understanding of the doctrine of purgatory. In purgatory, we are purged of sins as well as sinful tendencies and made perfect (Heb 12:23). This perfection will be accomplished by a radical transformation of our nature, so that we become partakers (in a more complete sense than on earth) of God's nature (2 Peter 1:4). Since we will to do only those things that are in accordance with our nature, we will not will to do evil; because our nature will be the nature of God.

[Non sum dignus]

I think trying to shoe-horn God into our sensibilities about suffering is bound to lead to frustrating misunderstanding. All of the arguments about evil and suffering that purport to disprove the existence of God assume a lot about the way God must think.

Every time we ask a question that starts with, "How could God..." we are demonstrating our inability to accept God on His terms. I am reminded of the end of the Book of Job, where God reminds us that he is not accountable to humanity for his decisions. It is incumbent upon us to attempt to understand God as completely as we can. God has no obligation to alter creation to conform to our delicate and shortsighted sensibilties.

[carn]

Originally Posted by WesleyF

That is rendered impossible because of the Catholic understanding of the doctrine of purgatory. In purgatory, we are purged of sins as well as sinful tendencies and made perfect (Heb 12:23). This perfection will be accomplished by a radical transformation of our nature, so that we become partakers (in a more complete sense than on earth) of God's nature (2 Peter 1:4). Since we will to do only those things that are in accordance with our nature, we will not will to do evil; because our nature will be the nature of God.

Purgatory only adds another layer. For purgatory to work a human has to meet certain requirements and has to freely make decisions in such direction.
If humans decide wrongly, nothing can be done to allow enter into the city.

Therefore the problem of gently convincing all or at least many of those humans to behave in the right way with neither giving them to little info nor forcing them with a sledge hammer (aka appearing on national tv as some atheists suggested in a thread and reveal oneself). And this leads to the consequence that suffering exists.

@fhansen
If the suffering of innocent people would be prevented and the suffering of non-innocent not, then everybody would end up trying to act right for the wrong motive, which would make entering the city or the prparation phase for the city for many impossible.

[WesleyF]

Originally Posted by carn

Purgatory only adds another layer. For purgatory to work a human has to meet certain requirements and has to freely make decisions in such direction.
If humans decide wrongly, nothing can be done to allow enter into the city.

I believe your original point was about humans misbehaving in the city. With purgatory in place, that is rendered impossible. Sure, there are requirements to enter purgatory, but after purgation, further misbehavior is not possible.

[carn]

Originally Posted by WesleyF

I believe your original point was about humans misbehaving in the city.

It was a hypothetical thought to show, why its somewhat understandable why unconditional salvation for all is not possible.

Originally Posted by WesleyF

With purgatory in place, that is rendered impossible. Sure, there are requirements to enter purgatory, but after purgation, further misbehavior is not possible.

And if free willed beings need to be convinced without destroying their free will to behave in certain ways to meet some requirements, any obvious and drastic apporach that forces them directly or indirectly (e.g. only guilty suffer in the world and innocent never suffer, no one would miss that and the implications would effectively force everybody to behave in certain ways) is no longer realy possible. Which why suffering is part of Gods plan.

[WesleyF]

Originally Posted by carn

It was a hypothetical thought to show, why its somewhat understandable why unconditional salvation for all is not possible.

Ok. I am often very doctrinally sensitive (it might someday be called ODAD - Obsessive Doctrinal Accuracy Disorder, but till then I am safe ), so I try to immediately cease upon incorrect doctrinal statements and correct them.

Originally Posted by carn

And if free willed beings need to be convinced without destroying their free will to behave in certain ways to meet some requirements, any obvious and drastic apporach that forces them directly or indirectly (e.g. only guilty suffer in the world and innocent never suffer, no one would miss that and the implications would effectively force everybody to behave in certain ways) is no longer realy possible. Which why suffering is part of Gods plan.

Actually, I know what you are trying to say and in fact I agree with it, but I don't think you have worded it as well as I would have liked. What I would say is this - God is interested in lovers, not slaves. Now to love is to will the good of another for the other. If, as you said, God would have made his demands of heaven and hell plain and clear by appearing on TV, then people would find themselves compelled to obey him as slaves even if they didn't want to. Although that would not destroy free will, it would severely impact it.

[Spirithound]

Originally Posted by carn

Long ago i understood the reason, why there is now contradiction between a loving, allpowerful, allknowingand non-contradictory God and the suffering in the world at least intuitively.
... ...

So where is the exact problem?

How much suffering did you inflict on yourself coming up with this? lol, j/k
I think your reasoning is sound, although for completeness's sake, there are a couple other explanations that I think we must acknowledge for an accurate picture, and do not conflict with yours.

[yellow8yellowM]

I don't see why the free will argument is not enough. Can somebody explain where it falls short?

[Non sum dignus]

Originally Posted by yellow8yellowM

I don't see why the free will argument is not enough. Can somebody explain where it falls short?

It falls short with any argument built on the premise that a loving God wouldn't allow suffering to begin with.