“Can an Omnipotent, All-Benevolent God be Reconciled with this World of Suffering?”
In my opinion, only if Genesis is literal. In that case, a created being made with a free-will must be able to obtain the consequences of its decisions. God did everything he could to prevent the wrong decision:
He clearly explained the choice to his creation. He clearly explained the consequences that would occur from making the wrong choice (“On the day you eat of it, dying you shall die”.) And he clearly gave enough other choices so that idle curiosity or boredom weren’t a factor (“You may eat of ANY tree of the garden except one”). The Genesis account is clear that Eve did not take the forbidden fruit out of curiosity or boredom. She was presented with a challenge (which her pristine, fully-engaged mind would readily have recognized), and that challenge clearly would have led her to the logical conclusion, “either this snake is lying to me, or God is lying to me.” So who did she choose to distrust? God or the snake? The temptation was fair, in that it purely tested her faith in God only, and didn’t prey upon an inherent weakness or design flaw. Squared face to face with the idea that God may not be trustworthy, she embraced that idea rather than choosing to believe the best about God and that the snake was the untrustworthy one. And then, as a result of that decision, the curse fell upon mankind, and Adam and Eve’s decision to distrust God became a weakness that their descendants have inherited as part of the curse. I describe this to show that it doesn’t take much explanation from the Genesis account to de-couple God from the supposed blame that most thinking on this subject tend to ascribe to him. God isn’t to blame for mankind’s fall, nor for the world of suffering that resulted. If God had given Adam and Eve a good result for their disobedience, then they wouldn’t have really been free to choose good or evil. When you get the same thing no matter what you decide, then there was never really a choice to be had. So is the suffering our fault or God’s? We can’t have it both ways – you can’t have both free choice AND ascribe to God all culpability for the consequences of making a wrong choice.
Incidentally, I don’t know where “all-benevolent” idea came from. “All-…” implies the exclusion of everything to the contrary. The Bible describes a God who is more than one-sided. Yes, he is loving, more so than any human being, but the Bible also describes that God has a big problem with our lack of faith and of our lack of holiness. He hates it so much, that he sent Jesus to pay the penalty. And even Jesus frequently showed disappointment with his disciples. At how slow they were to “get it”. He would sigh at them. He would say, “are you so dull?”. Since Jesus was the fullness of the deity (Godhead) represented in human form, then we must take Jesus’ words as an extension of what God the Father feels. When Jesus was expressing frustration, that was God expressing frustration. The Bible says that every one of us will be called to account for the deeds we have done, so in my mind that contradicts with the post-modern idea of a fluffy pink bunny “all-loving” “all merciful” God who does nothing but sit in the theological box we have confined him to, and then we take him out and hold him in front of others and pet his soft fur and say, “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” Somehow, that’s not “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” The Bible says “God is a consuming fire.” And “who can stand before him?” He’s not a sugar daddy in the sky. And unfortunately, he’s been presented as such that the view of God presented is incompatible with a “world of suffering”. Even the word “omnipotent” is a man-made word made up to summarize God and put him in a theological box. God never uses this word when he describes himself in the Biblical text. So why do we presume upon God to think we can better describe him than he can? Why do we believe our man-made creeds over what God himself has revealed about who he is?
So I conclude that it’s a man-made construct to pit an “omnipotent, all-benevolent God” against anything, because the Bible doesn’t describe an “omnipotent, all-benevolent God”. Instead it describes a God for whom nothing is too difficult (which is different than omnipotent, when you deeply consider it), who is both benevolent and full of vengeance. He will reward the righteous and destroy the wicked. Somehow, I can’t see the cotton candy poofy “all-benevolent” God destroying the wicked. Maybe that’s why there are homosexual ministers in the church today, who say that God will overlook it. Maybe that’s why we can “pray for others” by revealing all their dirty secrets and not call it slander (the Bible lumps slander and homosexuality into the same pot, by the way. Neither one is more egregious nor less egregious than the other.).
OK, enough said. Just wanted to communicate that the question is slanted, because it tends to pit an imaginary, non-Biblical God against the world of suffering. I find no conflict with the Biblical (non-theologized) God and the world of suffering. I find that the book of Genesis, taken literally, actually answers all my objections. Even though it’s a difficult lesson to learn (to understand and take ownership that our rebellion is responsible for our own mess).
He clearly explained the choice to his creation. He clearly explained the consequences that would occur from making the wrong choice (“On the day you eat of it, dying you shall die”.) And he clearly gave enough other choices so that idle curiosity or boredom weren’t a factor (“You may eat of ANY tree of the garden except one”). The Genesis account is clear that Eve did not take the forbidden fruit out of curiosity or boredom. She was presented with a challenge (which her pristine, fully-engaged mind would readily have recognized), and that challenge clearly would have led her to the logical conclusion, “either this snake is lying to me, or God is lying to me.” So who did she choose to distrust? God or the snake? The temptation was fair, in that it purely tested her faith in God only, and didn’t prey upon an inherent weakness or design flaw. Squared face to face with the idea that God may not be trustworthy, she embraced that idea rather than choosing to believe the best about God and that the snake was the untrustworthy one. And then, as a result of that decision, the curse fell upon mankind, and Adam and Eve’s decision to distrust God became a weakness that their descendants have inherited as part of the curse. I describe this to show that it doesn’t take much explanation from the Genesis account to de-couple God from the supposed blame that most thinking on this subject tend to ascribe to him. God isn’t to blame for mankind’s fall, nor for the world of suffering that resulted. If God had given Adam and Eve a good result for their disobedience, then they wouldn’t have really been free to choose good or evil. When you get the same thing no matter what you decide, then there was never really a choice to be had. So is the suffering our fault or God’s? We can’t have it both ways – you can’t have both free choice AND ascribe to God all culpability for the consequences of making a wrong choice.
Incidentally, I don’t know where “all-benevolent” idea came from. “All-…” implies the exclusion of everything to the contrary. The Bible describes a God who is more than one-sided. Yes, he is loving, more so than any human being, but the Bible also describes that God has a big problem with our lack of faith and of our lack of holiness. He hates it so much, that he sent Jesus to pay the penalty. And even Jesus frequently showed disappointment with his disciples. At how slow they were to “get it”. He would sigh at them. He would say, “are you so dull?”. Since Jesus was the fullness of the deity (Godhead) represented in human form, then we must take Jesus’ words as an extension of what God the Father feels. When Jesus was expressing frustration, that was God expressing frustration. The Bible says that every one of us will be called to account for the deeds we have done, so in my mind that contradicts with the post-modern idea of a fluffy pink bunny “all-loving” “all merciful” God who does nothing but sit in the theological box we have confined him to, and then we take him out and hold him in front of others and pet his soft fur and say, “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” Somehow, that’s not “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” The Bible says “God is a consuming fire.” And “who can stand before him?” He’s not a sugar daddy in the sky. And unfortunately, he’s been presented as such that the view of God presented is incompatible with a “world of suffering”. Even the word “omnipotent” is a man-made word made up to summarize God and put him in a theological box. God never uses this word when he describes himself in the Biblical text. So why do we presume upon God to think we can better describe him than he can? Why do we believe our man-made creeds over what God himself has revealed about who he is?
So I conclude that it’s a man-made construct to pit an “omnipotent, all-benevolent God” against anything, because the Bible doesn’t describe an “omnipotent, all-benevolent God”. Instead it describes a God for whom nothing is too difficult (which is different than omnipotent, when you deeply consider it), who is both benevolent and full of vengeance. He will reward the righteous and destroy the wicked. Somehow, I can’t see the cotton candy poofy “all-benevolent” God destroying the wicked. Maybe that’s why there are homosexual ministers in the church today, who say that God will overlook it. Maybe that’s why we can “pray for others” by revealing all their dirty secrets and not call it slander (the Bible lumps slander and homosexuality into the same pot, by the way. Neither one is more egregious nor less egregious than the other.).
OK, enough said. Just wanted to communicate that the question is slanted, because it tends to pit an imaginary, non-Biblical God against the world of suffering. I find no conflict with the Biblical (non-theologized) God and the world of suffering. I find that the book of Genesis, taken literally, actually answers all my objections. Even though it’s a difficult lesson to learn (to understand and take ownership that our rebellion is responsible for our own mess).
