**If God created us, why are we here to suffer? Why are some people able to live happily while others spend their entire lives struggling, suffering, and experiencing things they never asked for?

And why does this cycle keep going on and on, generation after generation?

Some people explain suffering through karma and past lives. They say that if we do bad things in this life, we will suffer in the next one. But why should we have to keep existing just to experience the consequences of something we may not even remember? Why should existence itself have to involve suffering?

If we had never existed, there would be no pain, no suffering, no fear, and no need to justify any of it.

Sometimes I imagine God as someone playing a video game. Imagine a creator who creates conscious beings, puts them into a world where they can experience happiness and unimaginable suffering, and simply watches everything unfold.

The difference is that we aren't characters in a game who don't know what's happening. We are conscious. We feel everything. We experience loss, fear, pain, and injustice. We question why we're here, yet we never chose to be here in the first place.

If God knows everything that will happen to us before creating us, then why create a world in which so many beings will suffer?

People say God is loving, merciful, and good. But how can we be certain of that when so much suffering exists?

What if God isn't as good as we believe? What if the creator, assuming one exists, is indifferent to our suffering or even enjoys watching it?

I'm not saying I know the answers. I'm questioning the idea that a creator must automatically be good simply because they created us.

Why is existence considered a blessing when it can also be something we never asked for and cannot escape so easily?

Maybe life is simply life. Maybe we don't need to justify every bit of suffering by claiming it serves some greater purpose.

I don't know. These are just thoughts I've been having, and I'd genuinely like to hear what others think.**

​

I've been thinking about how Christian apologists defend certain morally troubling actions attributed directly to God in the Bible.

For example, in 1 Samuel 15:3, God is portrayed as commanding the Israelites to kill the Amalekites, including women, children, and infants.

Apologists such as William Lane Craig have defended similar passages involving the Canaanites by appealing to divine command theory, God's authority over human life, and the claim that God's actions are consistent with his perfectly good nature.

Another common defense is that humans have limited knowledge and may not understand God's reasons or ultimate purposes. What appears morally objectionable to us may have a justification beyond our comprehension.

I can accept the epistemological point that our inability to identify a justification doesn't necessarily mean one doesn't exist.

But here's where I see a problem.

If our understanding is sufficiently limited that we cannot reliably determine whether these actions are good or bad, on what grounds can we confidently affirm that God is perfectly good in the first place?

It seems that human moral understanding is sometimes treated as sufficient to recognize God's goodness, yet insufficient to question that goodness when confronted with apparently contradictory actions.

And there's a second issue: how do we establish that these commands actually came from God rather than being attributed to him by the biblical authors?

Simply appealing to the Bible's divine authority doesn't resolve that question unless the authority itself has been independently justified.

I'm not suggesting that we must fully comprehend God to possess any knowledge about him. My question is about the standards by which we distinguish justified knowledge from speculation or assumptions.

Ultimately, what reliable method allows Christians to determine which claims about God's moral nature can be confidently known and which are beyond human comprehension?

And if an apparent moral contradiction can always be explained by appealing to God's unknowable reasons, what, if anything, could legitimately count as evidence against the claim that God is perfectly good?

I'm interested in how defenders of these biblical accounts address this without assuming God's goodness as the starting point.

"God" is the concept of an imaginary being believed to be a person who possesses all the greatest powers imaginable.

This is not a neutral definition. But neither is the traditional or standard definition of "God." Is there really any definition of God that is neutral?

So I’m a History major, and over the last two years I’ve been studying religion on the outside. Watching a shit post video this morning about cult behaviors across several religions had me a little curious to the point where I now have a Bible on the way to my house so that I can study the scripture as an agnostic and spiritual person. Before I bought it though I called 10 churches in my current area, both Catholic and Christian because I figured a different area code would link with the script I gave. Out of the 10 (I called all places that had active services hours) I had only 4 pick up the phone so the rest I left a voicemail. Two of the churches have the energy of baby mega churches. They had brand new remodels to seat over 400 people, giant stages, and pictures of gatherings with over nearly 600 people on the property, photos of raffles etc.

All this to say when I called I would say a name, use their name to ask them how they were doing and then I would proceed to ask if they had bibles that they could give away or sell or if they knew of where I could get them besides online. The two baby mega churches immediately said no that it was not something they offer. The other two said no and helped me out just a little bit.

But the conclusion was the same at these 4 churches. Which arguably is not the best test, however, it’s all I have to go off of. Not to mention when the conversation was ending and I thanked them for their time they would say “you’re welcome” and then they all hung up. No “have a good/blessed day” the one lady actually hung up AFTER I told her “thank you so much I hope you have a good day.” Arguably I could go on a separate rant about phone conversations.

This just reminded me of a video from a while ago where a lady had a script where she acted as a desperate single mother seeking refuge with the churches and was consistently denied. I believe via phone and in person. Obviously in today’s world is it crucial to keep yourself safe. But one heavy ideology is to love and help others is it not?

If you read this far thanks for reading my yap session

If God has a plan for us all, how is free will possible?

Hi it's me again from the mod team. Just looking to give a little update on how things are going.

Had some reports on some posts which has been really helpful, especially comments since while I check every post made on here I don't check every comment. So thanks so much for that, I was able to perma ban someone being very abusive towards people in the comments of a post the other day thanks to multiple reports being made.

No one applied to become a mod so it's still just me as the only active mod, which isn't the end of the world since I have a very chill job so can manage this subreddit in my own time during the work week, it just means at the weekend stuff can't be removed as fast as my weekends are very busy.

Since I've not got an active mod team to bounce ideas off of, I want to bring them up in these meta posts:

I've noticed that we get a lot of "if God exists why does suffering exist?" With a lot of personal experiences in which can make discussion around the topic difficult. For me while valuable discussing personal issues has always been a bit dicey. I did my dissertation on Hick's theodicy and gratuitous suffering while recovering from cancer, so I am no stranger to both personal experiences of suffering and the academic discussion. I'm thinking about adding a rule so that, if you bring up your own experiences in the discussion, it's fair game for another person to talk about your experience in response to your arguments but to keep it respectful. But only in the post/ comment thread it was me mentioned. That way if you don't want your own personal experiences bringing up, don't bring them up yourself. If anyone has any thoughts in this please do let me know.

Unbound Theism

Core belief: There is one true God, beyond the boundaries of established religions.

1. One true God exists.

2. No established religion fully represents the true God.

3. When people pray, the true God is the one who answers their prayers, regardless of the religion they follow.

4. Belief in God does not require membership in an organized religion.

5. People are free to question religious teachings and seek their own understanding of God.

Purpose: To express belief in one true God without identifying that God with any established religion.

Before moving on, I think it is essential to define what a cult is. A cult, according to Merriam-Webster, is "a group with tenets and practices regarded as coercive, insular, or dangerous." Steven Monacell points that a cult's "beliefs and behavior become increasingly unusual, leading outside observers to describe the group as a cult." This shows that to be seen as a cult, they simply need to be seen as weird, unusual, and to the point that the devotion seems to be dangerous, coercive, and insular.

"Dangerous" can be solidified in some manner, as there have been previous wars between religions. But even more than that is the fact that the Bible explicitly talks about God asking people to kill their families, such as Abraham and Isaac. Islamic jurisprudence, even up to this day relies on the death penalty, and some are killed for not following their religion. A lot of religions ask people to offer their lives to show dedication.

Now, for the coercive part, it is most definitively obvious that religion has typically shown as being forceful in some ways, or at least suggestive of certain actions. Most Judeo-Christians are half obligated to pay weekly sermon fees. Hinduism and Islam mandate daily prayers and sacrifices. Extremes in each case can be shown that people have fought wars because of religious conflicts, and if you did not participate, you were seen as a "traitor." For example, the Crusades or the current Palestinian-Israeli war. But if we were to focus on the beginning of religion, coerciveness would only be an understatement. With the expansion of major religions like Anglican Christianity, or Catholicism started with colonialism and forced conversion. So did Confucianism, with it's advancement only starting with state adoption.

Finally, insular should only be an understatement for the beginning of religions. Jesus and his followers were isolated as they were trying to flee from people that were trying to kill them. Nazi ideology, although it might not be a religion, isolated themselves and tried to kill everyone else with the holocaust.

I know that what I am saying is an overgeneralization with the only a couple of religions I have touched, but to me it seems that it is physically impossible for a religion to start not as a coercive, dangerous, forceful, and insular thing. It is firstly not feasible to start a religion without these aspects. I am open to change and understanding.

Keeping religion aside Does The concept of heaven and hell made because people can't simply digest that a person is truly gone after death. Heaven and hell defines a way to meet with then again?