Why does a good God allow pain and suffering to exist in this world?

Neogaia777 · Jul 26, 2024

partinobodycular said:
So you still wanna play this ridiculous game... okay. But let's make it perfectly clear that there's a major difference between the theist's version of faith, and the agnostic/atheist's version of faith. A difference that's easily illustrated with one simple question.

Are you willing to admit that God may not exist?

Atheists will almost universally accept the possibility that black holes don't exist. The possibility may be remote, but it's there.

On the other hand theist's will almost never, ever admit the possibility that God doesn't exist.

So, what say you... is it possible that God doesn't exist?

That possibility is extremely, extremely remote in my own case now for a lot of reasons that I'm not going to try and fully get into right now here, etc.

But the question I like to put to people who may not believe is with Jesus and his Apostles in the NT, etc.

And that is with everything we have recorded in them about all of the super or other natural being done by them, or having happened to or with or around them in the NT, etc, can you really accept that all of them were fake, and absolutely none of them were real, etc?

Because if even one of them was real, etc, then I have to ask you where you think that power or ability came from, etc?

If even any of them were real, then "how", or how did that happen, etc?

It's very much highly unlikely that they were all made up, so how did those things happen, or where did that or those powers or that ability come from then, etc?

And could they have come to some even if they didn't maybe know all of the whole truth about all things maybe, or were maybe even partially decieved about some things maye, etc?

That power/ability came from somewhere. So if so, then how were they able to happen, or where did they come from, etc?

And again, I'd like to remind you that we have so very many of them recorded in the NT with Jesus and the Apostles that it's highly unlikely to the point of being impossible that it was all a lie, or was all just a bunch of lies, or was just a complete and total fabrication or deception, or was all just made up, etc.

So how did it/they happen, or where did they come from I wonder, etc?

Those kinds of powers or abilities do not ever just come from nowhere, or just out of thin air, so where did they come from, or how did they happen I wonder, etc?

Because they can't just all be made up, etc.

God Bless.

partinobodycular · Jul 26, 2024

Neogaia777 said:
And again, I'd like to remind you that we have so very many of them recorded in the NT with Jesus and the Apostles that it's highly unlikely to the point of being impossible that it was all a lie, or was all just a bunch of lies, or was just a complete and total fabrication or deception, or was all just made up, etc.

I wouldn't call them lies, I'd call them stories that got embellished over time, as legends and myths are wont to do. Especially when they've been collected, edited, and promoted by a church who's entire existence depends upon people's belief in the divinity of their supposed prophet. But yes, I believe that every single one of the miracle stories are untrue. Not outright lies, just historically inaccurate. As are 90% of the martyrdom stories.

Absolutely one of the worst defenses of the miracle stories is that since there are so many, certainly some of them must be true. Nope, if people are willing to accept one erroneous story, then they're willing to accept a hundred. That's how we get conspiracy theories and boxes of fraudulent ballots. As they say, a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on.

But you're right, those kind of delusions don't come from nowhere, they come from the minds of people.

And just for the record... are you willing to admit that God may not exist?

Neogaia777 · Jul 27, 2024

partinobodycular said:
I wouldn't call them lies, I'd call them stories that got embellished over time, as legends and myths are wont to do. Especially when they've been collected, edited, and promoted by a church who's entire existence depends upon people's belief in the divinity of their supposed prophet. But yes, I believe that every single one of the miracle stories are untrue. Not outright lies, just historically inaccurate. As are 90% of the martyrdom stories.

Absolutely one of the worst defenses of the miracle stories is that since there are so many, certainly some of them must be true. Nope, if people are willing to accept one erroneous story, then they're willing to accept a hundred. That's how we get conspiracy theories and boxes of fraudulent ballots. As they say, a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on.

But you're right, those kind of delusions don't come from nowhere, they come from the minds of people.

And just for the record... are you willing to admit that God may not exist?

You do realize that we have copies of the NT from when most of the original followers of Jesus were still alive, don't you?

Anyway, I don't believe these things were all exaggerated to the point of all being made up just to perpetuate some kind of religious belief, or continue some kind of completely made up story, or a lie, etc, as there was no organized religion back then yet that was trying to maintain or keep or sieze a hold on power, or any kind of other such thing, etc.

And I think if you were being honest, you would conclude the same, etc. That some of those were real, and that there is no other way they can be explained, etc.

And I also think you accuse them of having an agenda while also having your own, etc, which is distorting your perception, and your honesty, etc, and that's what I think your own denial of this really is really, etc.

And as for a God, or the subject of some kind of God's existing, or else not existing, etc, you don't know what I know, or have been where I have been, or seen or experienced the things I have experienced and seen, etc. And even 100% completely apart from the Bible, it would be impossible for me to believe that now, or not believe these things now, or believe that all of these things are a lie, etc. And I think if you had my life, you would conclude the same, etc.

I also can talk to Them in my head now, but that's also something else I don't think you'd understand, and I might have a little bit of trouble explaining, etc.

It's impossible for me not to believe now, as I've seen for sure how all of these things are possible, and have personally witnessed God, or some kind of beings abilities to do these kinds of things at any given time, etc.

So anymore now, I have been trying to find a way to logically explain it to the rest of you, etc, and while I have made a lot of progress in that area, it is still not a thing that I can make it 100% impossible for you to not believe, etc.

God Bless.

Neogaia777 · Jul 27, 2024

partinobodycular said:
I wouldn't call them lies, I'd call them stories that got embellished over time, as legends and myths are wont to do. Especially when they've been collected, edited, and promoted by a church who's entire existence depends upon people's belief in the divinity of their supposed prophet. But yes, I believe that every single one of the miracle stories are untrue. Not outright lies, just historically inaccurate. As are 90% of the martyrdom stories.

Absolutely one of the worst defenses of the miracle stories is that since there are so many, certainly some of them must be true. Nope, if people are willing to accept one erroneous story, then they're willing to accept a hundred. That's how we get conspiracy theories and boxes of fraudulent ballots. As they say, a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on.

But you're right, those kind of delusions don't come from nowhere, they come from the minds of people.

And just for the record... are you willing to admit that God may not exist?

If you believe that "every single one of the miracle stories are untrue", then you are calling them "lies", etc.

So let's just put aside the pretense, and stop acting like you are not saying that, ok.

Because that is a "lie", etc.

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that we have copies of the NT from when many of the original followers of Jesus were alive, and from a time when there was very little to almost no corruption in the churches yet, and from a time when many of Jesus original followers were still alive, etc.

Believe whatever you like though, etc.

But I'd just like to remind you that the cost for not believing if your motives were in any way wrong or corrupt or were not right, is going to be very, very, very high, etc.

God Bless.

Neogaia777 · Jul 27, 2024

@partinobodycular

For someone who says they don't like to assume things, you certainly seem willing to assume that none of these were or could in any way be real or true ever, and that greatly offends me.

Won't be assume anything else, but will assume this, etc.

It is the epitome of hypocrisy, etc.

Because you should be keeping an open mind about it at least, etc.

God Bless.

partinobodycular · Jul 27, 2024

Neogaia777 said:
You do realize that we have copies of the NT from when most of the original followers of Jesus were still alive, don't you?

Well that explains a lot... you don't know the history of the bible. I would never have guessed that.

History of the Bible

The original manuscripts of the New Testament books are not known to have survived. The autographs are believed to have been lost or destroyed a long time ago. What survives are copies of the original. Generally speaking, these copies were made centuries after the originals from other copies rather than from the autograph.

The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business-card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which may be as early as the first half of the 2nd century. The first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates to the 4th century.[25] The following table lists the earliest extant manuscript witnesses for the books of the New Testament.

Neogaia777 said:
Anyway, I don't believe these things were all exaggerated to the point of all being made up just to perpetuate some kind of religious belief, or continue some kind of completely made up story, as there was no organized religion back then yet that was trying to maintain or keep or sieze a hold on power, or any kind of other such thing, etc.

The early Christian church was a hodge podge of different beliefs and narratives. It took centuries before the Catholic Church created the bible that we know today, and set about the task of destroying all unauthorized versions of the Gospels that it considered to be heretical. So you can thank the Catholic Church and no one else for the bible that we have today.

You're free to believe whatever you want, I don't care. But as for myself, I'll stick with the facts.

Neogaia777 said:
If you believe that "every single one of the miracle stories are untrue", then you are calling them "lies", etc.

There's a difference between a deliberate attempt to mislead someone, and simply being mistaken about something. The miracle stories in the bible simply got embellished over time. If you want to call them lies... then yup, they're all lies. (Your words not mine.)

Neogaia777 said:
Either way, it doesn't change the fact that we have copies of the NT from when many of the original followers of Jesus were alive, and from a time when there was very little to almost no corruption in the churches yet, and from a time when many of Jesus original followers were still alive, etc.

The operative word there being "copies". No original manuscripts exist. And as for authorship... ehhhh... unknown.

Neogaia777 said:
But I'd just like to remind you that the cost for not believing if your motives were in any way wrong or corrupt or were not right, is going to be very, very, very high, etc.

Threats aren't going to get you very far... but I guess that when that's all you've got... that's all you've got.

That's the difference between you... me... and God... me and God don't need to threaten anyone, we're perfectly happy with letting you be you.

Oh, and you didn't answer the question. Are you willing to admit that God may not exist? It's funny how few Christians can answer that question honestly.

partinobodycular · Jul 27, 2024

Neogaia777 said:
For someone who says they don't like to assume things, you certainly seem willing to assume that none of these were or could in any way be real or true ever, and that greatly offends me.

There's another difference between you and I... I'm almost impossible to offend. Perhaps you should work on that.

partinobodycular · Jul 27, 2024

Neogaia777 said:
Because you should be keeping an open mind about it at least, etc.

My mind is wide open... all that it requires is evidence, unfortunately the available evidence doesn't support the claims.

Neogaia777 · Jul 27, 2024

partinobodycular said:
Well that explains a lot... you don't know the history of the bible. I would never have guessed that.

History of the Bible

The early Christian church was a hodge podge of different beliefs and narratives. It took centuries before the Catholic Church created the bible that we know today, and set about the task of destroying all unauthorized versions of the Gospels that it considered to be heretical. So you can thank the Catholic Church and no one else for the bible that we have today.

You're free to believe whatever you want, I don't care. But as for myself, I'll stick with the facts.

There are no facts supporting that the NT is false, or made up, or that the supernatural in it is made up, but you're just choosing to assume/believe that yourself.

partinobodycular said:
There's a difference between a deliberate attempt to mislead someone, and simply being mistaken about something. The miracle stories in the bible simply got embellished over time. If you want to call them lies... then yup, they're all lies. (Your words not mine.)

The operative word there being "copies". No original manuscripts exist. And as for authorship... ehhhh... unknown.

Ok, say middle of the second century, big deal, still doesn't mean they were made up.

You're seriously going to assume that none of the reports we have about Jesus, and him doing all that he did, could be in any way real or true?

Why do you assume that when you don't assume that about other things, or anything else?

You're being a major hypocrite right now.

Serious bias, or double-standard, etc.

partinobodycular said:
Threats aren't going to get you very far... but I guess that when that's all you've got... that's all you've got.

It's not a threat if you live by two different standards, and are only wanting to apply one of them to what you don't want to be true, or won't admit could possibly be true.

Or you are open to everything else, but are 100% closed to this.

partinobodycular said:
That's the difference between you... me... and God... me and God don't need to threaten anyone, we're perfectly happy with letting you be you.

I don't think you know or have God, so you shouldn't need to concern yourself with that.

partinobodycular said:
Oh, and you didn't answer the question. Are you willing to admit that God may not exist? It's funny how few Christians can answer that question honestly.

I thought I answered it already, and told you that's impossible for me anymore now.

Under normal circumstances, or for other people, and for myself in the past, etc, then, yeah maybe some people need to still be or stay open to that possibility, etc, but mine is not a normal circumstance anymore now, so there's no way I could even acknowledge that possibility anymore now, etc, and if you had my life, I'm pretty sure you would understand, etc.

But trying to get others to admit to that possibility, when you are 100% closed to the possibilities of anything else, etc, is being a major hypocrite, etc.

God Bless.

Neogaia777 · Jul 27, 2024

partinobodycular said:
There's another difference between you and I... I'm almost impossible to offend. Perhaps you should work on that.

Were supposed to take offense to some things, like being a hypocrite, or having two different standards for one.

And only choosing one of them only when it comes to Jesus, and God, and things like this?

Yeah, I fear for you.

And you should fear too, etc.

God Bless.

Neogaia777 · Jul 27, 2024

partinobodycular said:
My mind is wide open... all that it requires is evidence, unfortunately the available evidence doesn't support the claims.

There is more than enough evidence it admit it is possible, etc.

But you choose not to do that, but only not do that only when it comes to this, etc.

You might as well have said you are 100% sure they can't be real or true, etc, and since you won't do that with almost anything else?

Then, yeah, I fear for you, etc.

If there is anything God hates more than someone who won't believe in Him or His Son, then it is someone who is being 100% dishonest, and who is guilty of hypocrisy, etc.

Honesty says that maybe the reports we have of the super or other natural in the NT could be actual, or real, or 100% true.

Could be anyway, etc.

But you are 100% closed to that, when you are not with anything else, and that not only offends me, but I think also greatly offends both God and me, etc.

God Bless.

Neogaia777 · Jul 27, 2024

@partinobodycular

You once told me that one of your core beliefs centered around not assuming things, or assuming anything, etc. And so, at the time, I sought to respect that as much as I could, and to not try to convince you of some things, etc.

But here you are now assuming that any kind of super or other natural is 100% just not possible, and cannot be real, and can't exist, etc. So can you not see how I could be offened by this, etc? Or how any quote/unquote "God" might be greatly offended by this, etc?

You just automatically assume that none of these kinds of things could ever be real or true or possible, and that there is no kind of God or being that could ever do them, and that this is all just made up and can't exist, etc, and you basically said this for 100% certain, etc.

Anyway, can you not see the problem with this, or how this could offend God and/or me, etc?

Not believing for 100% sure, I can believe, or take, etc. But this hypocrisy of yours in thinking these things could not ever be possible ever, even in the slightest, etc, in light of what else both God and myself knows you believe, etc, is more than either one of us can take I think, etc.

Because your not just only lying to us, but you are also lying to yourself, etc, when you are guilty of this kind of hypocrisy, etc.

You don't do it with other stuff? So why do it with this?

Anyway, enough of my going on about it for now.

God Bless.

stevevw · Jul 27, 2024

Experiencing pain requires a conscious being. So does knowing God. So maybe that has something to do with it.

I noticed that when Adam and Eve sinned they covered themselves. So something happened in their consciousness of reality or perhaps Gods reality that they were immerced in.

Like a glitch or thorn that entered into the equation that made us aware of good and evil. Maybe this was inevitable as God cannot exist with evil but that doesn't mean that evil is something that cannot exist. Gods goodness cannot exist as good unless there is evil otherwise it means nothing.

Though I am sure it is not that simple. Not just knowledge of good and evil but of our carnal nature, of the prime elements and senses that come with this. As opposed to Paradise which was more a spiritual realm where these things were not present.

It seems heavenly agents can know evil as Satan exists. So the idea of good and evil of truth and lies is greater than the human conceptions we use and may be more a spiritual battle that is playing out from the beginning and before we came into being.

Perhaps this is how it must be so that evil can be once and for all tried, and tried again until it runs its course and can say no more, have no more excuses or rationalisation or trickery left and will have run its course to finally establish the truth of Gods order and Will.

Ace777 · Jul 27, 2024

partinobodycular said:
I wouldn't call them lies, I'd call them stories that got embellished over time, as legends and myths are wont to do.

So they are or are not universal truths?

Larniavc · Jul 27, 2024

Ace777 said:
Before Adam and Eve we did not have that choice.

Yeah they did. Clearly. How else was the decision to sin made if not by free will?

Ace777 · Jul 27, 2024

Larniavc said:
Yeah they did. Clearly. How else was the decision to sin made if not by free will?

Free will is the choice to accept or reject the will of God. We see the breath of life in association with the Garden of Eden. en. Science talks about a food gather and food producer. This actually began with an author called Breasted 100 years ago and Science is still teaching this today.

Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being. 8And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the man He had formed

Before Adam and Eve humans did not have free will. That was something He breathed into them. Only people need to be true to themselves or they will perish in their sin. If we follow God we well live forever.

Larniavc · Jul 27, 2024

Ace777 said:
Free will is the choice to accept or reject the will of God.

How could they have had free will if the had not partaken of the tree of knowledge?

Ace777 · Jul 27, 2024

Larniavc said:
How could they have had free will if the had not partaken of the tree of knowledge?

Free will refers to the capability to choose. They made the wrong choice. Then their eyes were opened.

Ace777 · Jul 27, 2024

Larniavc said:
Yeah they did.

After God breathed life into them. The Hebrew word for "breath of life" is nephesh (נפש‎). It can also mean "life", "person", or "very self". In the Bible, nephesh is used to describe the instinct for "breath of life" in the nostrils of all living beings, but not for plants or bugs. It's also connected with lifeblood.

This is why Noah saved all he did on the Ark.

David Lamb · Jul 27, 2024

Ace777 said:
Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being. 8And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the man He had formed

Before Adam and Eve humans did not have free will. That was something He breathed into them. Only people need to be true to themselves or they will perish in their sin. If we follow God we well live forever.

So in your view, death existed before the fall? According to the bible, there were no humans before Adam and Eve. The bible says God created them, and refers to Adam as "the first man.":

“45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man [was] of the earth, [made] of dust; the second Man [is] the Lord from heaven.” (1Co 15:45-47 NKJV)

Why does a good God allow pain and suffering to exist in this world?

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Old Soul

Old Soul

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Old Soul

Old Soul

Old Soul

Old Soul

inquisitive

Jesus Saves

I’m the best.

Jesus Saves

I’m the best.

Jesus Saves

Jesus Saves

Well-Known Member

Similar threads