Why God allows suffering evenrthough he loves us

Word games BK.

Word games neither prove anything, nor inform us of anything.

Bottom line is, a magical deity might or might not exist.

But as no one has ever seen a magical deity, then there probably is no such thing.

But as no one has ever seen a magical deity, then there probably is no such thing.

False logic, also good luck explaining why atheists have much worse life outcomes then statistically.

It would be less logical to suggest the opposite.

And all life outcomes are the same. Every million in a million die and statistically that's a 100%.

There is no distinction to be made between theists and atheists.

Actually, according to a Pew study, the religiously unaffiliated (atheists and agnostics) have the second-longest lifespan of any group, finishing just behind Jews and just ahead of Buddhists. 

It would be less logical to suggest the opposite

I dont think you know what logical means. Opposite is possible and did happen plenty of times, making your claim false.

And all life outcomes are the same

No, living 5 years shorter is not the same as living 5 years longer.

Not only do religious people live longer and have less depression, but children of religious or conservative parents also have much less mental health issues, in addition to the fact that religious or conservatives are more likely to reproduce.

So yeah, calling different things same is another example of your great logic.

Pew, you make things up!

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/01/31/religions-relationship-to-happiness-civic-engagement-and-health-around-the-world/

I don't think there ever was purpose to eliminate suffering, just to ease its impact, as well as to ultimately end it altogether, but not in this life. I think that is a falascious idea that suffering was supposed to end. That is not an eartly event, but one of heaven, and we are not there, yet. That would deny us free will. Some people use their agency to cause suffering of others, and God allows that, or he would be guilty of blocking free will, and he will not do that. Besides, God is not the cause of suffering just because he allows it. That's not a root cause because it is not his doing in the first place; it is ours, or it is chaos in nature. No, nature is not in perfect balance.

https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/which-religion-has-the-longest-life-expectancy/

Fake study which is contradicted by its own sources:

"Much of the relevant research was conducted in the U.S. where larger advantages in longevity were reported for religious people in some studies, but little or no advantage was found in others. It is difficult to make sense of these discrepancies but it seems likely that religiously observant people in the U.S. live longer than those who stay away from church."

I'm as old as Trump and all my religious friends have died.

Before that, you said Jews live longer.

A good friend of mine who was Jewish and had a doctorate in engineering from MIT, at the age 71, died peacefully in his home from cancer, after living with the disease for 17 years.

One lives and dies with no idea of what constitutes 5 years more or 5 years less.

And longevity can be attributed in part to many lifestyle factors, atheism per se not logically being one of them. Though the support of any empathetic community could undoubtedly make a difference.

Then there are genetics and good old fashioned luck.

My Brother in Law Died at the age of 60 after suffering a painful demise from myeloma, which was also what attributed to his fathers death. This was fuck all to do with religion.

And did you know that Africa, the most religious continent, has the highest rate of road traffic related deaths and also the lowest overall life expectancy.

Therefore logical reasoning could lead to the conclusion that GOD must be racist...But on the other hand, it could just be the way things are.

And jibes that refer to my knowledge of words and definition are the lowest form of argument.

Have a nice day BK and don't forget to get out of bed and feed the hens.

And did you know that Africa, the most religious continent, has the highest rate of road traffic related deaths

Entire world believes in God, not just Africa, and degrees of religious dedication are impossible to meassure. Maybe only Chinese and Japanese are mostly atheists, which we can see how it worked out for them there. Sucks to be them.

And jibes that refer to my knowledge of words and definition are the lowest form of argument

Let me guess, you think opposite of "probably no" is "probably yes"?

People argue the weirdest things to try to justify their religious belief or lack thereof. What it comes down to or should come down to is you've had some type of experience that leads you to believe that there is something more than yourself out in the universe. That's it. Nothing else matters. Nothing about your life matters. How how you die doesn't matters. It's all irrelevant.

That is true Poly.

And I like to think that there is a purpose to everything, even if it just means that everything is it's own purpose.

I refer to it as a GOD principle.

Nope, I've never had that thought come to mind.

Probably, indicates the uncertainty or likelihood of an indefinite thought or proposition, and yes and no are alternative outcome choices relative to said uncertain or indefinite thought or proposition.

Probably, indicates the uncertainty or likelihood of an indefinite thought or proposition, and yes and no are alternative outcome choices relative to said uncertain or indefinite thought or proposition

Probably yes and probably no arent only options.

Sort of probably, perhaps, maybe, not that sure, but I suppose could be or might not, or may not even, but on the other hand might be.

Though neither certain or uncertain but definitely don't know for sure either way.

There is a case where its neither probably yes neither probably no. People usually call this in a very simple way: 50%.

Extended reply to your #2 post in my next 4 posts:

1 Suffering serves some constructive purpose. I entirely agree. I think it always does, even in instances when our suffering is due not our own folly. However, I disagree that God can ever be blamed for our suffering, regardless of severity. Contrary to some who believe that God is the total cause of everything, good or bad, which occurs to us, I believe God is almost never the total cause of anything which occurs. Yes, I believe God created "heaven and earth" as is described in Genesis, but, since I believe in multiple gods, many of whom we have nothing to do with, and who all in some respects have been creators, the universe is a construct that is not the complete work of any of them. They each have "creation" of portions of it, always abiding by natural laws, therefore, I do not believe "heaven" means the entire universe, but only a portion of it, including our Earth. It may extend only insofar as our galaxy - my personal belief.

Extended reply to your #2 post

2 Suffering exists because God wants us to have free will.  I entirely agree with this. Without our free will, the entire purpose of our existence is thwarted. But I believe you are wrong in the claim that the Bible is void of this concept. “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:” [Holy Bible [KJV] Gen. 2: 16]. That there are consequences to our free choices is obvious, and we know that in the choice of eating of the tree of knowledge “…in that day, thou shalt surely die,” but “death” has several meanings, physical and spiritual. Physical death is a singular occurrence, but spiritual death, which implies separation from God, may occur multiple times in life. We know Adam and Eve did not physically die for generations beyond expulsion from Eden - separated from God.

Extended reply to your #2 post

3 Suffering exists because without it, happiness and pleasure could not. I entirely agree with this statement, though disagree with your conclusion. The degree of sufferings we endure is entirely of our own making due to our personal variability to be obedient to God’s commands. Were we perfect, we would be in full agreement 100% of the time, but we are not perfect, though expected to try to be so. To the degree that we succeed, we may yet suffer, for it is nearly impossible to sustain an ability to continue stepping up the scale of perfection. We step up, step back, so on and so on…

Extended reply to your #2 post

4 We brought suffering into the world ourselves. I agree with this, as well. 

But I do not buy the concept of original sin, because I belief the atonement of Christ completely dissolved the effect of Adam and Eve on us. We do not bear their stain at all; they, alone, bear that stain, subject to their own ability to repent of it. And, I do not buy the Catholic nor Protestant view of repentance, that it is acceptable to sin, go to a priest or pastor to absolve us, and yet sin again, rinse and repeat. I believe we truly repent only when we are able to express sorrow for a sin, and turn our heart away from that sin to resist repeating it. Until we can do that, we have not yet successfully repented. And we do that over and over again, hopefully just for separate sins we commit, eventually perfecting ourselves of committing any sin at all. It is a lifelong process that is achievable. Otherwise, Christ’s atonement is meaningless, and we are in denial of it.

Okay, time for me to chime in.

God allows our suffering simply due to the fact that he granted us free will, and, associated with that, gave us dominion of the Earth,meaning that, past the creation events of six periods of time [the more proper understanding of the Hebrew term, "yom" [day] as given in Genesis. Considering that until the fourth day, when the sun and moon were created, we could not count creation events in "days" of 24 hours, could we? That's over 60% of the creation process, however long it really occupied. Couple that with tyke fact that the entire Genesis "genealogy" description contained gaps of time not accounted for, the assumed "6,000 years" to Adam is also conjecture. I digress.

Being given "dominion," God, in essence, backed away from being a " root cause" of events, while maintaining contact with us to guide, but not to coerce. We, ourselves, but for coercion by someone else, are responsible for our suffering. WE may blame presidents and magistrates, and even out next-door neighbors for distressing events in our lives, but that is still "us," not God. We say, seven fir allowing that God allows suffering, that he is responsible for us, because he cult have "stepped in" to stop something. But, how doers that align with his promise to give us Dominion? The two just don't make sense. Nor do I believe Adam and Eveare responsible for ur lot in life. Nope, the atonement of Christ removed that link; we are responsible for ourselves, just as Adam and Eve were for themselves, and why take Christ out of the equation? Original sin? No, that just negates Christ's atonement. I don't agree we should accept that.

So you're arguing that all suffering serves a good purpose? Childhood leukemia? Volcanic eruptions? Random traffic accidents that kill mothers driving their kids to the park?

A doe trips and stumbles into a rock depression, where it is unable to escape, and dies of starvation. What purpose did this serve?

Believing the gods are powerful beings, and they can do things for you, especially when it comes to making sure you have food to feed your family and village, is a lot different than just assuming their good or overlooking their evil behavior. Let's say you have a professor in college who's excellent in his field and you're getting a lot of great education from him. But you find out he sleeps with his students. You have a choice. You can continue to keep your mouth shut and learn from him. Or you can turn him in. Working with certain deities would require you to do the first. There's a reason that there are deities today that people don't worship at all. There's way more choice in polytheism in what you do and don't do, because society no longer looks at the gods as controlling the natural world as much as they did then.

Fair enough. I think gods such as this make a lot more sense and are a lot more in line with the nature of the universe.

I'm not sure what the driving need is to believe in an omnibenevolent God. The need to believe the greatest power in the universe is your friend, perhaps?

50% what?

Purpose of suffering does not end with end of life. That merely ends suffering for the righteous, but suffering continues for the evil among us. And all of that is dependent on whether we have made righteous or evil user of our practice of dominion on earth. If we have made righteous use of our dominion, in spite of experiencing suffering on earth, we will ultimately benefit by our righteous dominion, and our suffering will be rewarded with glory. If not, we will not be glorified, but will continue suffering to a degree we cannot now imagine. Regret for evil doing can be very painful, mores than the fire and brimstone often copnclude4de as beings hell. Nope. Hell is a shop window with no door into the shop, knowing, finally, doors have been restricted for those who were evil on earth.