Why Does God Allow Suffering

Why Does God Allow Suffering

Thomas Allen

In “Suffering and the God of Love,” Glad Tidings of the Kingdom of God, issue 1666, pages 13–17, Chris Furniss attempts to explain why God allows suffering. His argument seems to center around disproving the atheist’s assertion about the nonexistence of God.

He admits that suffering “has probably caused more people to lose faith, and prevented more people from finding faith, than almost any other problem.” (P. 13.) Although he does not discuss prayer specifically, unanswered prayer has done more damage. In Matthew 7:7, Jesus said, “Ask and it shall be given you.” As everyone who has ever prayed knows that this promise has not been kept. (See “Why Elijah Defeated the Baal Priests” by Thomas Allen.)

Furniss summarizes the atheist’s argument that God does not exist:

Christians believe in a loving, all-powerful God. But such a God would want to stop all the suffering in the world. He has not stopped the suffering, therefore either:

a He is all-powerful but not loving, or 

b He is loving but not all-powerful, or 

c He does not exist. (P. 13.)

Furniss does not discuss an argument that is not atheistic. According to this argument, only two of the following propositions can be true:

1. God is all-knowing, omniscient.

2. God is all-powerful, omnipotent.

3. God is a God of love, benevolent.

If God possesses the two attributes, omniscience and omnipotence, commonly given to Him (and the Bible supports these attributes), then He is not benevolent. Instead, He is malevolent. If God is benevolent, then He lacks one or both of the attributes that the Bible claims that He has.

Furniss asserts that the atheist’s argument is based on four false assumptions:

1.  that God is in some way responsible for suffering,

2.  that suffering is necessarily bad,

3.  that if God allows suffering when He has power to stop it, He is therefore lacking love, and

4.  that because God has not so far stopped suffering, He therefore never will. (P. 13.)

Then, Furniss proceeds to refute these four propositions. He presents four arguments against the first proposition.

First, deliberate acts of humans cause suffering. These acts include crimes and wars. Furniss believes that blaming God for these acts is unfair. (Yet, God is omniscient and omnipotent. Since He does not intervene to prevent such acts of suffering, He is at least partially responsible. Moreover, He commanded the Israelites to war against the people of Canaan, so He is solely responsible for the suffering of the Israelites and the people of Canaan caused by these wars.)

Second, humans unintentionally cause suffering. Furniss uses famine and starvation as examples. According to him, God has provided the world with more than an adequate food supply, but people refuse to share. (Furniss fails to realize that most famines are political. They result from wars or political leaders deliberately starving their people. No amount of sharing will relieve these types of famines. Nevertheless, since God is omniscient and omnipotent and since He fails to intervene to relieve the suffering, He is at least partially responsible.)

Third, human foolishness causes suffering. As an example, Furniss uses a drunk driver causing an accident. He asks who is to blame. The implication is that the drunk driver is solely to blame. (True, the drunk driver is to blame. However, being omniscient and omnipotent, God could have prevented the accident. Therefore, He is at least partially responsible.)

Fourth, suffering is beyond a person’s control, i.e., the suffering is not the fault of the sufferer. An example is a child born deformed. (Again, since God is omniscient and omnipotent, He can prevent such suffering. Therefore, He is at least partially responsible.)

(I am not sure which one of the four above arguments Furniss would place the plagues of Egypt that occurred just before Moses led the Israelites from Egypt. Nevertheless, God was responsible for the plagues as He caused them, and, therefore, He was responsible for the suffering that they caused.)

In response to the second proposition, Furniss argues that suffering is not necessarily bad. In his argument, he confuses pain with suffering. For example, when a person touches a hot object, he feels pain, which causes him to withdraw his hand and prevents him from suffering a third-degree burn. Furthermore, Furniss states that according to Paul, suffering is a gift from God and good for the sufferer. (Consequently, following Furniss’ reasoning, child abuse, battery, etc. are gifts from God and are good for the sufferer. Thus, he makes God appear malevolent. Moreover, his argument for this proposition contradicts some of his arguments for the first proposition since people attempting to relieve suffering are depriving the sufferer of a gift from God.)

For the third proposition, Furniss argues that God deliberately allows people to suffer because He loves them. (Do parents show their love for their children by beating their children unmercifully? Following Furniss’ reasoning, they do. Or, do they show their love by sparing their children from as much suffering as possible?) Although God can prevent suffering, Furniss claims that God is completely innocent of all human suffering. (However, other than assertions, Furniss offers no convincing argument on why an omniscient and omnipotent benevolent God bears no responsibility for human suffering.) Furniss blames sin as the cause of suffering.

Furniss answers the fourth proposition by claiming that God will eventually end suffering. God ends suffering by removing the cause of suffering: sin. Then, Furniss offers two ways for God to remove sin.

First, God makes it impossible for people to sin. According to Furniss, the only way that God can prevent people from sinning is to strip them of their free will and turn them into robots.

Second, God sets forth a plan that shows people how to live and provides a way to salvation. (How following God’s plan, even perfectly, prevents suffering beyond a person’s control, Furniss does not explain. Moreover, if God can only prevent sin by stripping people of their free will and converting them to robots — as Furniss asserts, then saved people in the hereafter must be robots with no free will. If not, they would start the sin cycle again. Not only can people sin willfully, but they can also sin accidentally or because of ignorance or stupidity.)

For Furniss’ arguments to be valid, at least one of these three must be true:

1. The sin of omission does not exist, i.e., failure to act is not a sin. (For more on the sin of omission, see “Some Random Thoughts on Religion” by Thomas Allen.)

2. If the sin of omission does exist, then God, who is omniscient and omnipotent, is the greatest sinner of all.

3. If the sin of omission exists and if God is not a sinner, then God is held to a lower standard than are humans.

Trying to refute the atheist, Furniss attempts to present God as a benevolent God who shows his love for people by allowing them to suffer. However, he portrays a God who either revels in human suffering or is limited in knowledge and power like humans.

Copywrite © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

King on Where We Are Going– Part 2

King on Where We Are Going– Part 2

Thomas Allen

About alliances with churches and church bodies, King writes, “Some churches recognize that to be relevant in moral life they must make equality an imperative.” (P. 159.) An alliance can be made with these churches, and other churches should be shunned. (However, God is no egalitarian. Saved and unsaved people serve as an example. If God were an egalitarian, then all people would either go to heaven and receive the same reward or go to hell and receive the same torment. Since saved people go to heaven and receive different rewards, and unsaved people go to hell and receive different torments, God cannot be an egalitarian; he rejects equality.)

King states, “A primary Negro political goal in the South is the elimination of racism as an electoral issue.” (P. 160.) (This goal has failed. For at least 55 years, Negroes have made racism an electoral issue. Whites ceased making racism an electoral issue decades ago with Whites surrendering unconditionally to the Negro and joining Negroes in the genocide of the White race.) 

Then, King comments on White politicians surrendering to the Negro. He notes, that as more White politicians compete for the Negro bloc vote, the “monolithic white unity based on racism will no longer be possible.” (P. 161.) (Whatever unity that Whites had based on race did collapse as King predicted. However, Negro unity based on racism quickly replaced it and has remained intact ever since.)

Continuing, King comments “that the Negro vote has not transformed the North” (Pp. 161-162) as it was transforming the South. He blames this lack of progress in the North on Northern Negroes having “never used direct action on a mass scale for reforms.” (P. 162.)

Further, King blames the lack of Negro political strength in the North on “the grip of an old tradition on many individual Negroes. They tend to hold themselves aloof from politics as a serious concern. They sense that they are manipulated, and their defense is a cynical disinterest.” (P. 162.) (Thus, Northerners had less concern for Negroes than did Southerners.)

King asserts that Negroes must use their political strength (i.e., governmental coercion) to achieve their goals. (So much for nonviolence.) They cannot do it with economic power or through culture.

Then, he offers the Jews as an example for Negroes to follow. Jews placed a great deal of emphasis on education; so should Negroes. (A big difference exists between Jews and Negroes. On average, the IQ of Jews is about 25 to 30 points higher than the IQ of Negroes, which is about 85, a standard deviation below the IQ of Whites.) He comments on Jewish social and political actions as examples for Negroes to follow.

Correctly, King states, “Education without social action is a one-sided value because it has no true power potential. Social action without education is a weak expression of pure energy.” (P. 64.) (Since the 1960s, Negroes overall have shown little improvement in intelligence, intellect, characters, temperament, and other nonphysical traits influenced by genes. In attitude, Negroes have even regressed and show no appreciation for what Whites have given them, which is everything that they have demanded, except reparations [and that will make no difference], even genociding themselves. The more Whites surrender to the Negroes, the more Negroes loathe Whites and the less they appreciate what Whites have given them.)

King urges Negroes in the civil rights movement to pressure Negroes who are not active in the civil rights movement to join and become active. The inactive Negro needs to be scorned to “pick up his citizenship rights and add his strength enthusiastically and voluntarily to the accumulation of power for himself and his people.” (P. 165.) King wanted to make every Negro a protestor.

Then, King writes, “The slave heritage can be cast into the dim past by our consciousness of our strengths.” (P. 165.) (Instead of casting away their slave heritage, many Negroes copied the Jews. As Jews boast of their Holocaust™ heritage even if they have none, Negroes boast about their slave heritage even if they have none. As Jews have used the Holocaust™ to swindle ever more wealth and power from people who were not alive at the time of the Holocaust™, so have Negroes used slavery to swindle ever more wealth and power from people who were not alive at the time of slavery.)

Continuing, King argues that adequate organization is necessary to channel the Negro’s fighting spirit to achieve radical reform. Negroes needed to overcome “their disunity and petty competition.” (P. 166.) (Much of the Negro’s victory over Whites results from disunity and petty competition among Whites. Worse, some Whites, especially Yankees, have sought to annihilate another White ethnicity, Southerners — and have wanted to genocide them even before Lincoln’s War. Moreover, scalawags, New-South Southerners, Southern wokesters, and other quislings care little about their brethren, the Southern people, and nothing about Southern culture. Instead, they imitate the Yankee and join him in the genocide of the Southerner. Yankees and these Southern traitors join Negroes in their war against the South.)

Next, King writes, “Negroes are almost instinctively cohesive. We band together readily, and against white hostility we have an intense and wholesome loyalty to each other.” (P. 168.) (Cohesiveness is one great advantage that Negroes have over Whites. Negroes easily unite against Whites. Unfortunately for the White race, some White ethnicities, especially the Yankee, loathe other White ethnicities, e.g., Southerners, so much that they are willing to unite with Negroes against their fellow Whites and genocide them.)

Continuing, King proposes some civil rights programs. He focuses on one in particular, which deals with poverty. He states that “there are twice as many white poor as Negro poor in the United States.” (P. 170.) Then, he identifies several causes of poverty. (One item that he omits from his list is genetics. Genetics is not the cause of all poverty, but it is the cause of some poverty.) He criticizes the fragmented approach to treating poverty; a coordinated approach is needed. King concludes that the solution to poverty is a guaranteed income. (King-idolizing conservatives take note: You need to promote a guaranteed income.) Further, he attacks the market economy because its “dislocations in the market operation . . . and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will.” (Pp. 171-172.) (King ignores that when given a choice to work or to be paid for loafing, many people will choose to loaf for a living.)

Then, King identifies two groups that have enjoyed guaranteed incomes for nearly 40 years: “The wealthy who own securities have always had an assured income; and their polar opposite, the relief client, has been guaranteed an income, however minuscule, through welfare benefits.” (P. 174.) (King must have never owned securities. Stocks may or may not pay dividends. Moreover, a company may go bankrupt, which usually results in the holders of its stocks and bonds losing everything.)

Citing John Kenneth Galbraith (an abysmal but popular economist), King notes that the cost of a guaranteed income is about what is spent on the Vietnam War. King concludes, “If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity [of distribution].” (P. 174.) (King ignores the lack of constitutional authority for the federal government to provide a guaranteed income. But, then, King had absolutely no use for the US Constitution; nearly everything that he advanced was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, a State may provide a guaranteed income unless its constitution prohibits it.)

King taught Negroes how to envy and never to be satisfied. He taught Whites to disdain themselves and to seek their own genocide. Moreover, he destroyed the South, which the White oligarchs wanted to be destroyed because the South was the last bulwark on the planet for liberty, localism, constitutional government, Christian values, and the White race. 

Although King objected to discrimination based on merit, he did not object to discrimination based on race per se. Although he opposed racial discrimination that favored Whites, he supports racial discrimination that favored Negroes. Nearly all Negroes agree with King concerning discrimination.

Since other races are genetically more endowed than the Negro, Negroes, like King, object to discrimination based on merit. They prefer discrimination based on race if the discrimination favors their race as it has for at least the last 50 years.

The hiring of musicians for classical orchestras illustrates this hypocrisy of Negroes. Historically, few Negroes were hired to play in classical orchestras. Negroes claimed that they were not hired because of their race. In response to this accusation, a barrier was placed between the auditioning musician and the people hiring so that those hiring could not see the race of the musician; they could only hear the music that the musician was playing. Still, the number of Negroes playing in classical orchestras did not significantly increase. So, Negroes demanded that those hiring see the person auditioning. Thus, Negroes demanded discrimination against better-qualified White musicians in favor of less-qualified Negro musicians. In other words, Negroes were demanding affirmative action and quotas for Negro musicians. Naturally, King would have approved of this racial discrimination against Whites since he promoted such discrimination throughout his career.

The fate of the North American Indians provides a warning to Whites. Indians failed to unite against White immigrants when they greatly outnumbered Whites. Many Indians allied with Whites to fight other Indians. As a result, the North American Indian is almost extinct — most that exist today are more mongrel than Indian. Whites are following the path of the North American Indians.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1.

More social issues articles.

King on Where We Are Going– Part 1

King on Where We Are Going– Part 1

Thomas Allen

In “Where We Are Going,” Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 143–176, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses the development of civil rights programs, power, Negro economic activity, labor unions, Negro political power and voting, Negro leaders, and poverty. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

(First, I must remind the reader that most conservatives and nearly all conservative commentators consider King a conservative. Furthermore, many conservative commentators assert that King is an archconservative and the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him. Hereafter, all these conservatives are referred to as King-idolizing conservatives. Since King is an archconservative, these King-idolizing conservatives should advocate everything that King advocated.)

King blames the Vietnam War for the slow progress of the civil rights movement and the cause of the absence of program advancement. Although many programs had been proposed, most had been ignored. Moreover, the federal government failed to enforce existing laws that would have advanced the cause of the civil rights movement.

Chastising the federal government, King declares, “Underneath the invitation to prepare programs is the premise that the government is inherently benevolent.” (P. 144.) (One thing that the civil rights movement taught, or should have taught, Southerners is that the federal government is malevolent — just as it was during the First Reconstruction.)

Next, King complains about shifting the burden of producing civil rights programs from the White majority to the oppressed minority. This shifting of the burden gave Whites an excuse to do nothing and to claim that Negroes wanted nothing. (Placing the burden on Whites allowed Negroes to blame Whites for the failure of such programs although they failed because of the Negro’s innate attributes. Nevertheless, when Whites finally did push forward civil rights and related programs, they gave the country to the Negro and then enslaved themselves to the Negro. Is the country any better off because of this suicidal act of Whites?)

King declares, “When a people are mired in oppression, they realize deliverance when they have accumulated the power to enforce change.” (P. 144.) (Now the Negro has the power to enforce change. Have they changed the country for the better or the worse? If for the better, why is America destroying itself and why is America far, far more divided today than in the 1960s?)

Then, King states, “Our nettlesome task is to discover how to organize our strength into compelling power so that government cannot elude our demands.” (P. 145.) (King’s followers accomplished this goal. Not only do the federal and State governments not elude Negro demands, but they also exceed those demands while Whites attack each other for not giving the Negro more. Reparations are the only demand where Whites have not yet surrendered, but that surrender is coming.)

King wanted programs that would satisfy the Negro’s aspirations. (Within a few years after King’s death, Whites showered Negroes with rapine, benefits, and privileges that Whites never enjoyed. Yet, Negroes still demand more.)

Next, King laments that “too few Negro thinkers have exerted an influence on the main currents of American thought.” (P. 146.) (This problem has now been solved. Has the country improved because of it?)

Continuing, King complains about the lack of Negro businesses. (Negro businesses were growing under segregation during the Jim Crow Era. However, the civil rights moment diminished them — at least initially.)

Although King condemns labor unions in other essays for discriminating against Negroes, he praises them in this essay for creating racial harmony and for providing Negroes hospitality and mobility. Further, unions had brought Negroes high wages. Still, Negroes needed to increase their influence in the labor movement. He notes, “The coalition of an energized section of labor, Negroes, unemployed and welfare recipients may be the source of power that reshapes economic relationships and ushers in a breakthrough to a new level of social reform. The total elimination of poverty, now a practical possibility, the reality of equality in race relations and other profound structural changes in society may well begin here.” (P. 150.) (King-idolizing conservatives take note.)

Then King discusses Negroes using their vote as consumers to exert economic power. They needed to use the boycott to give them what they demanded. (Some Whites attempted to use the boycott to counter Negro boycotts. However, because of a lack of White unity and disorganization, White boycotts failed. Unlike White boycotts, Negroes were unified and organized in their boycotts; therefore, they succeeded. Now, after 55 years, Whites finally learned something from the Negro and are using boycotts to punish businesses that promote wokeism and queerdom, but not interracial mating. Since the country is rapidly succumbing to wokeism and queerdom, how effective these boycotts will be, remains to be seen.)

Part of the Negro’s demands was quotas for Negroes. The workforce in each category should reflect the percentage of the Negro population. (Qualifications of the Negro for the job did not matter. What mattered was his race. Consequently, all King-idolizing conservatives need to support hiring based on race to meet the quota.)

Next, King comments on the rising political power of the Negro. The population in major cities was rising because of Negro migration and because the Negro birthrate was exceeding that of Whites in the cities. “The two trends, along with the exodus of the white population to the suburbs, are producing fast-gathering Negro majorities in the large cities.” (P. 154.) (As a result, Negroes have taken control of several major cities. In other major cities where they do not control directly, they control indirectly through their kowtowing White slaves.) By controlling governments of large cities, especially in the North, Negroes obtained enough political power substantially to “determine the political destiny of the state.” (P. 154.) 

King remarks that through a coalition of urban minorities, Negroes will control the Democratic Party. (Where Negroes are a significant part of the electorate, Democrats usually need the Negro vote to win. The question is, do Negroes use White Democrats or do White Democrats use Negroes?) Continuing, King states that even the Republican Party needs the Negro’s vote to win, especially in the presidential elections. (Even today, most Republicans believe that they need the Negro vote to win although only a small percent vote for Republicans and although Republicans have won more presidential elections than Democrats since the 1965 voting rights act. If Whites valued the interest of their race as Negroes do theirs and voted for the candidate that served their racial interest as Negroes do, no White presidential candidate would need the Negro vote.)

Then, King comments on Negroes destroying the power of the Dixiecrats and Southern reactionaries. Consequently, they eliminated the power of Dixiecrats and Southern reactionaries in Congress. Thus, Congress can impose the Negro’s agenda on the South and then the rest of the country(, which it did). 

Next, King discusses the need for Negroes in party politics. Traditionally, White political leaders have manipulated Negroes. (Some believe that White political leaders still manipulate Negroes. White oligarchs have been highly successful in manipulating Negroes to increase the power and wealth of the oligarchs.) He criticizes the typical Negro politician, most of whom were frontmen whom Whites had picked and supported. About these Negro politicians, King writes, “Tragically, he is in too many respects not a fighter for a new life but a figurehead of the old one.” (P. 156.) Then, he comments on the poor performance and distrust of Negro politicians.

About what Negroes need to do, King states that “we shall have to do more than register and more than vote; we shall have to create leaders who embody virtues we can respect, who have moral and ethical principles we can applaud with an enthusiasm that enables us to rally support for them based on confidence and trust.” (P. 158.) (This goal has only been partially achieved. Many Negro politicians have come forward whom Negroes and even many Whites enthusiastically support. However, most of these Negro politicians lack moral and ethical principles — just as many White politicians lack moral and ethical principles.) Continuing, King demands, “We will have to demand high standards and give consistent, loyal support to those who merit it.” (P. 158.) (Negroes have failed to demand high standards. But, then, since King’s moral and ethical standards were low, he may have been considering his low standards as high. Anyway, most Negroes give consistent loyal support to Negro political leaders whatever their standards. Many Whites are also guilty of supporting Negro politicians with low standards and with no moral or ethical principles.)

Next, King describes the need for Negroes to become politically independent and ways to force machine politicians to bow to the Negro’s will. Then, he states, “The future of the deep structural changes we seek will not be found in the decaying political machines. It lies in new alliances of Negroes, Puerto Ricans, labor, liberals, certain church and middle-class elements.” (Pp. 158-159.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More social issues articles.