[quote=Hitetlen]If that is the reason, I would prefer that he did not “love” me. We can do quite well without this kind of “love”. It is totally incorrect to call this attitude “love” since it is in dire contradiction to what we mean by “love” when it is applied to human interaction.
Here is part of the problem that I think you may be having in following this understanding. Your definition of love is missconcieved. You said in an earlier post that the term love is vaguely defined. This is not the case. Love is strictly defined as desiring the highest good for the other. With this proper definition of love in tact my statement on this also remains in tact.
This is true to a point. Remember the language I used is “at times will cause …” I specifically used this formulation because I knew that this would be your response. What it speaks to is that it is not a necessity that coming into contact with that non-being will necessarily cause suffering. However if the non-being is great enough then it will cause suffering such as blindness or a poisenous bug bite.
Actually this is the most logically coherent arguement. Much human suffering is due to the direct cause of the free actions of another. If God did not love all of us equally then he would not allow for true freedom. This true freedom is where moral evil comes from and it is moral evil that causes the most suffering in the world. Thus, this point that you acclaim as nonsense can only be so apart from the natural world. However, living in the real world it is self-evident.
[quote=Hitetlen]Wow! I am almost rendered speechless. If God’s glory comes from our suffering, then God is the most evil being there could be. To wallow in someone else’s pain and misfortune to glorify oneself is so horrible that I am lost for words. Again, the defense is worse (much worse) than the “attack”.
This assumes that suffering is always evil. The perfect example of this is the Pasch of Christ. It was through the suffering of the Cross that attonement was realized. Without the suffering of Christ then there is no redemption. Your reaction to this is not unexpected as it stems from the basic tendance of the modern to recoil against all forms of suffering. Also you are reducing the equation to suffering + man = God’s glory which is not even implied in my post. Rather suffering can be a means to manifest God’s glory which is a very different thing.