I've been listening to a number of Christian philosophers, university professors, intellects, ministers, et al, and they ALL speak as if the "problem of harm" question is among the most difficult to answer when atheists, gnostics, agnostics, etc., bring it up.
What really is at issue here? They claim the answer is not at all simple. Really? Why make it so difficult?
My observations have been that the world simply doesn't want any answer besides just one...God is allegedly not so loving and powerful as Christians claim.
Additionally, the world doesn't want to hear the REAL answer, in that the Lord has given to mankind a Book that has all the answers necessary to reduce the majority of suffering in the world...apart from those who practice victimhood because of their being so lazy. That Book shows mankind the necessity to abstain from adultery, idolatry, fornication, theft, violence, greed, abuse of power, et al. It has ALL the answers mankind could possibly need to make all of life so much better for everyone, apart from disease and death...and even then, there is solace, healing at times, and comfort for all of life and death.
It can also be observed that those who whine and complain about the problem of harm, never accepting the harsh realities behind this governing phenomenon over all of mankind, will not ever be satisfied with the fact that their blaming God and calling His benevolence into question will never esteem them in my eyes or the eyes of the Lord. Rather than to blame the Lord for "allowing" it all, these perpetual victims need to see their own guilt and that of mankind in general. The majority of suffering in this world is the result of man himself, not God!
There! See how simple that is? It's so simple that dare they consider it, they realize their inability to change all of mankind to bring the world into alignment with that Book we call the Bible, so they naturally, in accordance with fleshly corruptions, gravitate toward blaming the One who will not at this time address them nor lift a finger to do the dog and pony show they want God to subject Himself to in order to satisfy their desires.
What I say to them is to do what they can to make their own corner of the world a better place, and influence others to do the same. In so doing, they heap up reward for themselves if they are in Christ. Apart from Christ, it's all in vain since good works save nobody. Even that woman they called "mother Teressa," all those "good works" of hers will have availed her NOTHING at all for entrance into Heaven if she had not been born again. That's for God alone to judge rather than people on this earth demanding where she ends up. All her work failed to change the Indian culture away from a class-based system.
So, the primary blame rests squarely on the shoulders of mankind, not God. Those who want to blame God for allowing it all, that allowance is simply the outflow of the freedom we ALL have in living out what we're really made of in this life, and whether we will live again in the next life, or die again. The choice if quite clear, and this world of fallenness in freedom is the perfect test bed to separate the sheep from the goats in the manner that nothing else would suffice.
Does that seem harsh? It is a little too-matter-of-factly for the pallet sensations of some? Does it rub some the wrong way? Does it seem too simplistic?
What do YOU think?
MM
What really is at issue here? They claim the answer is not at all simple. Really? Why make it so difficult?
My observations have been that the world simply doesn't want any answer besides just one...God is allegedly not so loving and powerful as Christians claim.
Additionally, the world doesn't want to hear the REAL answer, in that the Lord has given to mankind a Book that has all the answers necessary to reduce the majority of suffering in the world...apart from those who practice victimhood because of their being so lazy. That Book shows mankind the necessity to abstain from adultery, idolatry, fornication, theft, violence, greed, abuse of power, et al. It has ALL the answers mankind could possibly need to make all of life so much better for everyone, apart from disease and death...and even then, there is solace, healing at times, and comfort for all of life and death.
It can also be observed that those who whine and complain about the problem of harm, never accepting the harsh realities behind this governing phenomenon over all of mankind, will not ever be satisfied with the fact that their blaming God and calling His benevolence into question will never esteem them in my eyes or the eyes of the Lord. Rather than to blame the Lord for "allowing" it all, these perpetual victims need to see their own guilt and that of mankind in general. The majority of suffering in this world is the result of man himself, not God!
There! See how simple that is? It's so simple that dare they consider it, they realize their inability to change all of mankind to bring the world into alignment with that Book we call the Bible, so they naturally, in accordance with fleshly corruptions, gravitate toward blaming the One who will not at this time address them nor lift a finger to do the dog and pony show they want God to subject Himself to in order to satisfy their desires.
What I say to them is to do what they can to make their own corner of the world a better place, and influence others to do the same. In so doing, they heap up reward for themselves if they are in Christ. Apart from Christ, it's all in vain since good works save nobody. Even that woman they called "mother Teressa," all those "good works" of hers will have availed her NOTHING at all for entrance into Heaven if she had not been born again. That's for God alone to judge rather than people on this earth demanding where she ends up. All her work failed to change the Indian culture away from a class-based system.
So, the primary blame rests squarely on the shoulders of mankind, not God. Those who want to blame God for allowing it all, that allowance is simply the outflow of the freedom we ALL have in living out what we're really made of in this life, and whether we will live again in the next life, or die again. The choice if quite clear, and this world of fallenness in freedom is the perfect test bed to separate the sheep from the goats in the manner that nothing else would suffice.
Does that seem harsh? It is a little too-matter-of-factly for the pallet sensations of some? Does it rub some the wrong way? Does it seem too simplistic?
What do YOU think?
MM