The problem of evil/suffering when it comes to children

[Mr.wizard]

But it still does not solve the dilemma of why an Omni benevolent god would allow evil to occur. Its a non-answer, it's the same as saying I don't know.

If you don't believe in god then there's no dilemma, if you do believe in God there's no dilemma if you do believe God works in mysterious ways, or that suffering brings you closer to God or that you simply don't understand the way God works.  If there was a definition of God that says he's a being who lets no living thing physically die or suffer then there would be a dilemma.  As far as I can tell there's no claim in the bible, Quran or Torah that God is like that.

I see a huge dilemma with an omnibenevolent god allowing or creating evil, it is supposed to be infinitely good. The claim he works in mysterious ways is the same as saying I don't know why god lets that happen.

[Mr.wizard]

But it still does not solve the dilemma of why an Omni benevolent god would allow evil to occur. Its a non-answer, it's the same as saying I don't know.

Not just omnibenevolent, but omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, plus the flawlessness of perfection to boot. With ultimate perfection and greatness come the ultimate responsibility, and ultimately one cannot possibly be all of the above and allow anything evil to happen. A god which lives up to the above claims would not allow bad things to happen anywhere that it has influence because it simply cannot. It does allow evil, therefore the Xtian god is not what is claimed of it.

I agree

[Cecelia]

Suffering makes people want God to be there, but... ultimately it's pointless when he isn't. I mean it'd make him an awful God for him to let bad people do bad things to people, and then save them. But it's completely pointless and awful to let them do bad things to make them closer to him and then do nothing.

Which dad is the best dad and most likely to be genuinely loved by his daughter?

Example A:
Sara is walking down the street, and a thug tries to beat her up. She calls out for her dad, and he comes and beats the guy up before he lays a hand on her.

Example B:
Anna is walking down the street, and a thug tries to beat her up. She calls out for her dad, but he sits and watches knowing that it'll bring his daughter closer to him, waits until after she was beat up. He then beats up the Thug.

Example C:
Jennifer is walking down the street, and a thug tries to beat her up. She calls out for her dad, but he just sits and watches. Then after she's been beat up, her dad walks away. Later he e-mails her to tell her that it'll be okay, bad things happen to her because she is broken and that's okay because he still loves her even if she is broken.

[paulpablo]

But it still does not solve the dilemma of why an Omni benevolent god would allow evil to occur. Its a non-answer, it's the same as saying I don't know.

Not just omnibenevolent, but omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, plus the flawlessness of perfection to boot. With ultimate perfection and greatness come the ultimate responsibility, and ultimately one cannot possibly be all of the above and allow anything evil to happen. A god which lives up to the above claims would not allow bad things to happen anywhere that it has influence because it simply cannot. It does allow evil, therefore the Xtian god is not what is claimed of it.

I'm not all that familiar with the bible, is there anything in there that says god is omnibenevolent?  If it says anywhere in the bible that god is always benevolent then there might be a contradiction since he isn't benevolent in the bible towards sinners, for example he drowns the sinners of the earth in the story of Noah, although it doesn't say how he treats them in the afterlife it could be argued he's being benevolent in some mysterious way we don't understand in the long run.

Specifically related towards the suffering of children this isn't really a dilemma, from my own standpoint as an atheist god is a made up character and a theist can basically make up any reason as to why children might have to go through suffering, some of which have already been mentioned. It's a test from god, a mysterious test we don't understand, we don't know what he's doing and so on.

[paulpablo]

If you don't believe in god then there's no dilemma, if you do believe in God there's no dilemma if you do believe God works in mysterious ways, or that suffering brings you closer to God or that you simply don't understand the way God works.  If there was a definition of God that says he's a being who lets no living thing physically die or suffer then there would be a dilemma.  As far as I can tell there's no claim in the bible, Quran or Torah that God is like that.

I see a huge dilemma with an omnibenevolent god allowing or creating evil, it is supposed to be infinitely good. The claim he works in mysterious ways is the same as saying I don't know why god lets that happen.

I don't see a dilemma in saying I believe in a god but don't know exactly why he does everything he does.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Not just omnibenevolent, but omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, plus the flawlessness of perfection to boot. With ultimate perfection and greatness come the ultimate responsibility, and ultimately one cannot possibly be all of the above and allow anything evil to happen. A god which lives up to the above claims would not allow bad things to happen anywhere that it has influence because it simply cannot. It does allow evil, therefore the Xtian god is not what is claimed of it.

I'm not all that familiar with the bible, is there anything in there that says god is omnibenevolent?  If it says anywhere in the bible that god is always benevolent then there might be a contradiction since he isn't benevolent in the bible towards sinners, for example he drowns the sinners of the earth in the story of Noah, although it doesn't say how he treats them in the afterlife.

Probably not on omnibenevolence In my Fundy school, I was taught the other omnis, but not that one. To be honest, I still don't even know where these are derived in the bible, but they are the core of Xtian doctrine.

[robvalue]

Omni benevolence is not biblical. God claims responsibility for all evil (or calamity for those trying to weasel out through translation errors). He sends evil angels.

He drowns everyone ever, FFS.

I think most of the myths people carry around in their head aren't biblical. They have little to do with the explicitly evil total idiot laid out for all to see in the book.

He's not omnipotent, because he couldn't handle chariots made of iron.

He's not omniscient, because Adam and Eve managed to hide from him in the garden.

He is a joke.

[Mr.wizard]

Not just omnibenevolent, but omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, plus the flawlessness of perfection to boot. With ultimate perfection and greatness come the ultimate responsibility, and ultimately one cannot possibly be all of the above and allow anything evil to happen. A god which lives up to the above claims would not allow bad things to happen anywhere that it has influence because it simply cannot. It does allow evil, therefore the Xtian god is not what is claimed of it.

I'm not all that familiar with the bible, is there anything in there that says god is omnibenevolent?  If it says anywhere in the bible that god is always benevolent then there might be a contradiction since he isn't benevolent in the bible towards sinners, for example he drowns the sinners of the earth in the story of Noah, although it doesn't say how he treats them in the afterlife it could be argued he's being benevolent in some mysterious way we don't understand in the long run.

Specifically related towards the suffering of children this isn't really a dilemma, from my own standpoint as an atheist god is a made up character and a theist can basically make up any reason as to why children might have to go through suffering, some of which have already been mentioned.  It's a test from god, a mysterious test we don't understand, we don't know what he's doing and so on.

No is doesn't say omnibenevolent in the bible but it doesn't stop the xitan from giving god a pass or turning an evil act into a blessing from god. The believer is arguing that gods actions are good but saying at the same time they don't understand his ways, this is a dilemma, if you don't understand his ways then how can you know they're good? The only way you can be sure his ways are good without knowing them is if you believe his ways are always good.

If you wanted to use the bible to create a dilemma you could, god is infinitely righteous, infinitely just, infinitely merciful, in my opinion evil does not jive with any of those.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

The point I was making on the three omnis, not including the one on benevolence (for the obvious reason that Yahweh's love is conditional), is that they are taught by nearly all, if not all Christian leaders. Therefore, it really doesn't matter whether they're in the bible, when they are what they believe. When this doctrine first sprung from out of the Vatican sewer it was no more or less authentic than the bible itself, therefore the bible makes no difference. I was just using the doctrines which Xtians believe in order to point out how they contradict themselves. They just can't have a god which is all three omnis, and the pinnacle of perfection (another belief which few Xtians would be known to contradict), and allows bad things to happen. It would not be capable of that.

[robvalue]

Nor can they have omniscience and free will. Not even god's own free will.

But in fairy tail land, where none of it ever gets tested, unstoppable forces can meet immovable objects all the time.