Can ''test of faith'' justifiably be argued ad infinitum?

[Sneakgab]

Often the affirmation of a just benevolent God is challenged by those saying that such a God could never exist considering the general suffering of man and in particular the perhaps increased suffering and persecution that the religious often undergo.

The reply to that is invariable that all this suffering is a test of our faith by God.

Yet if a king or other master brought unbearable and nightmarish suffering upon his followers it would be unlikely that anyone would excuse him based on it all being a test of faith for his followers. Especially if he did not even have the courtesy to make that clear, thereby dooming all of his followers to wondering till they die if their suffering will ever end.

Of course the difference between God and a king (that is important here) is that God is omnisciesient. Hence, one can always claim that SOMEHOW, down the line, his actions will be for some form of greater good.

But what about reasonable doubt? If some christian is enslaved for his whole life and then fed to the lions on account of his religion, can we really claim this was just some justifiable test of faith. Of course he will supposedly go to heaven, but is this not the case for all as long as they accept God into their hearts, and given that said christian would not abandon his faith in spite of terrible persecution and consequences isn't it obvious that he would have remained faithful regardless of this ''test''. Why is this test even neccesary in the first place, considering God's omniscience? Was it supposed to somehow how develop this man?

I actually have not formulated an opinion myself yet, but I throw these thoughts out there regardless for others to discuss. Perhaps something of a religious nature will inspirit more fervored posting:D I think that some of the reason politics has died out here is because the majority have come to the conclusion that communism and socialism are basically better for the greater good than capitalism, so without that hotpoint there hasn't been that much to discuss excluding the latest absurd and insane decisions of inept goverments around the world. Speaking of which, isn't it a pity that the world has seemingly come to be ruled by the corrupt and/or stupid? Part of yet another test maybe?

[Egeides]

Perhaps "test" is to take things as they are and go on from there. Except if I rule in a totalitarian way over my neighbor, he won't act always as I'd want and I'll have to accept that if he's free this is what we have to deal with. Even if I'm lucky and the neighbors around are all nice people, simple incomprehension and seriously different directions or habits* will be enough to test me.

* oh noh, he's Marxist-oriented and I can't fit w/ his goals! / oh no, he acts like it's a commune!

[Caid Ivik]

But what about reasonable doubt? If some christian is enslaved for his whole life and then fed to the lions on account of his religion, can we really claim this was just some justifiable test of faith. Of course he will supposedly go to heaven, but is this not the case for all as long as they accept God into their hearts, and given that said christian would not abandon his faith in spite of terrible persecution and consequences isn't it obvious that he would have remained faithful regardless of this ''test''. Why is this test even neccesary in the first place, considering God's omniscience? Was it supposed to somehow how develop this man?

Not all slaves consider their persecution and consequences terrible, for example in medieval Egypt, all power was in hands of slaves bought from north. And also, a king, "only one free" in a despotic country, would be under terrible pressure as well. Everybody is under stress and really, why? Personal piety is always at risk, but what it overcomes, strengthens it. So yes, it is a way of development, spiritual growth.

[Sneakgab]

''Personal piety is always at risk, but what it overcomes, strengthens it. So yes, it is a way of development, spiritual growth.''

Well, any tribulation results in growth. What does not kill, strengthens. Yet we can then use this to condone the actions of a king putting terrible torment on his supporters can we not? It could all be to strengthen them. If we this justification for allowed random suffering by a benevolent God, then we could use it as justification for any harmful act

''Not all slaves consider their persecution and consequences terrible, for example in medieval Egypt, all power was in hands of slaves bought from north''

Well, the christian fed to the lions scenario was only an example. We could speak of any poor enslaved for life indivual who simply dies at the hands of his tormentors after a life of the utmost suffering in which he could do nothing to alter his fate. This example clarifies things really, the point(s) being: What was the purpose to this man's suffering and why would a benevolent God condone it?

Seems to me all one can retreat to saying is that his spirit developed due to the torment and this benefitted him in the afterlife. In that case, God should sentence everyone to lives of horrible torment. Unless some, such as those who live painless and bountiful lives (like those born rich) are all indivuals who happen to already have sufficiently strong/advanced souls... somehow including even the atheists among this group

[Warskum]

God does not need to test faith. As you mentioned God is omnisciesient and thus already knows how good or bad your faith is.

So why did God test Abraham? To show Abraham and the current readers what kind of faith is required. God already knew whether Abraham would sacrifice his son or not.

The point of most tests is to show us our own condition, so we can work on that and fix it and when we endure tests, we become spiritual stronger.

However, except for some very rare ocasions (like the Abraham case) God does not test people.

Please read the below part, which is qouted from James 1:2-18:

----

2Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. 4Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; 8he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.

9The brother in humble circumstances ought to take pride in his high position. 10But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower. 11For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich man will fade away even while he goes about his business.

12Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

13When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

----

I think this part clearly explains, that when one is tormented etc. one will become spiritual stronger. Moreover, those who die for the name of God or are tormented etc. receive a much better afterlife then others. Somewhere in the bible it is mentioned that a true believer will

face many of these problems and this is actually an honor and a joy for the believer, because his reward is big in heaven.

Unfortunatly since people are evil of nature and not so smart, some people might twist this and kill or suicide "for God", thinking they do something right, while the bible clearly states that both of these are not allowed.

Why doesnt every Christain suffer then?

I personaly can see 2 reasons (might be more, but with my current understanding of the bible I only see 2 at this moment):

1. One is not a real strong believer. Those that really, really devote their live to God, WILL be put in trails etc, as it is written.

2. One is not spiritually strong enough or devoted enough. Kind of looks like the first point, bible mentions that no one is tested above his strenghts, therefore those that would not endure this test will not be put to this test.

As we can see most prophets and most of Jesus's best followers where eventually killed for the work they had done. The above parts of my text explain why:

They where devoted and spiritually strong and through trails etc, they become stronger and eventually where killed, so they would receive a great reward in heaven.

Finally a qoute from Mathew 5:10-12:

---

10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

---

[Sneakgab]

''To show Abraham and the current readers what kind of faith is required''

What kind of faith?

''The point of most tests is to show us our own condition, so we can work on that and fix it and when we endure tests, we become spiritual stronger.''

Well, the results could be made clear to the testees without them having to undergo said tests and without them suffering either. Of course, you could argue that just knowing of their weakness would necessarily cause suffering, but why is it necessary to compound this with additional pain?

Besides, regardless of knowing one's condition one can continue to strive to improve himself regardless. Isn't that what a logical indivual concerned with his ''strength'' (ie: not reffering to physical strength obviously) would do?

Why wait to be tested, you're current condition is irrelevant to whether or not you should and try improve you're self if that is you're goal in itself. Unless you wish to know if you're strong enough so you don't waste more effort trying to improve you're self.

But in that case these tests being justified would imply that it's ok to never bother trying to improve again once you're spirit is sufficiently well developed, and that does not seem like a particularly positive attitude. Of course, this only follows if there is no other reason for these tests, but I currently cannot see another.

''8he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.''

Is this in reference to those in doubt?

You're passage seems to basically be claiming that this suffering is in fact good because it strengthens the sufferer.

But I have already replied to this in my former post:

'' ''Personal piety is always at risk, but what it overcomes, strengthens it. So yes, it is a way of development, spiritual growth.''

Well, any tribulation results in growth. What does not kill, strengthens. Yet we can then use this to condone the actions of a king putting terrible torment on his supporters can we not? It could all be to strengthen them. If we this justification for allowed random suffering by a benevolent God, then we could use it as justification for any harmful act''

''Why doesnt every Christain suffer then?

I personaly can see 2 reasons (might be more, but with my current understanding of the bible I only see 2 at this moment):

1. One is not a real strong believer. Those that really, really devote their live to God, WILL be put in trails etc, as it is written.

2. One is not spiritually strong enough or devoted enough. Kind of looks like the first point, bible mentions that no one is tested above his strenghts, therefore those that would not endure this test will not be put to this test.''

So every devout christian is ''blessed'' by God with suffering and tests to strenghten their spirits.

What of the torture of atheists then? Or for that matter, the torture of the indivuals who are not (insert you're religious division here). For the people among these groups who die as atheists or as members of their previous religion, their faith has clearly not been improved. Their spirits may have strengthened regardless, but this would occur from any painful event.

If that is the case we could praise a king who puts suffering on his atheist followers as this strengthens their spirit.

LOL, I just realized this whole topic is almost certainly just a huge sinkhole leading to a very familiar dead end based on having faith or not having faith.

How could I not have realized something this obvious immediately!? I must be growing senile pre-maturely.

Of course, the difference lies in the motivies, but how can we know God's motives?

Yes, he has written the bible, but if the fore-mentioned king writes a book that proclaims his just motives must we believe him?

I guess the question is: what differentiates our perceiving of the king as opposed to God?

The reply to this is of course: Well, the bible says God is good but who said the bible speaks the truth (whether it's written by God or not?

We only have faith that the bible is truthful. This is the only way to avoid cyclic logic. Now I see that being a christian does not only require faith in God's existence, but also faith that the bible's words are true, for being a christian requires following the bible and the justification for said following only remains if God is as the bible says he.

In other words, a christian must believe that God exists, that the bible he reads is scripted by God, and that God is perfectly honest.

This can only be done through faith

Therefore this whole matter boils down to faith VS no faith. Those with no faith will never be able to find a logical reason to agree with the faithful, and the faithful will always take what they have faith in to be true thus resulting in the correctness of their argument. Ie: The argument of the faithful is technically valid (correct if the assumptions are correct) but their assumptions are in question and can never be disproved or proved,

I was pondering the matter in terms of a bible that isn't necessarily truthful regardless of God's existence, but the assumption of honesty is the pivot point of the topic. If you believe God exists but do not necessarily believe his words he is the same as the king who would ordinarily be perceived in a poor light. If you believe his words as well the even the suffering of the atheists can be justified by saying that it strengthens their spirit and that that is God's motive.

Of course, if that is the case, then since God is omnipotent and omniscient then it follows that he must be right, in which case shouldn't we follow his ways and torture one another to their limits ''One is not spiritually strong enough or devoted enough. Kind of looks like the first point, bible mentions that no one is tested above his strenghts, therefore those that would not endure this test will not be put to this test''.

But of course only God knows people's limits for sure and the faithful would assume that he is already putting people to their limits. Of course this implies very low limits for the high ranked and rich.

And thus: ''9The brother in humble circumstances ought to take pride in his high position. 10But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower''

Although, if one is tested according to his limits then wouldn't the rich man grow as well? One might say that he will not grow as well as the poor man, but isn't that ironically unfair to the rich man then? He could put suffering upon himself but that would be going past his limits. If not then his self-imposed torture would be justified as would his torture of anyone else, were his motives so.

In other words, the following possibilities follow:

1: The poor man and the rich man end up just as well.

2: The rich man is unfairly limited by his circumstances but is being tested to his limits and therefore can't do anything about it.

3: The rich man is not tested to the utmost of his abilities, so he should torture himself and others to their limits to strengthen spirits.

In the first case, the suffering of the poor then seems unjustified.

In the second case, people seem randomly pre-destined to a certain fate regardless of their actions by limits they did not choose.

In the third case it seems we should all torture one another to our bare limits.

The first two is unjustified and the third seems... uncomftorble.

Hmmm... I am still mostly unsure of this but I suppose that if I was forced to make a decision right now I'd say that I'm convinced that from the perspective of the faithful all suffering IS justifiable as such.

Of course that's only if increasing one's perseverance could be said to be worth suffering. Wouldn't most rather live happily than with a strong spirit(this is all in the case of the atheist from a theist's perspective). There is also the issue of values other than happiness. If somebody's is forcibly removed from their path (such as a samurai for example) in order to increase their spirit's strength is this justifiable? To a samurai honor may be more important than his spirit's advancement or even happiness (ie: a higher good). From this perspective the removal of his honor would be unjustified and ''bad''. So such action can only be justified from different perspectives and subjective axioms of good and bad which cannot be proved to rate higher against each other. Of course one could simply say that God knows best.

However, one question remains: what does it mean to strengthen faith? either you have faith or you do not right? (correct me if I'm wrong). You can strengthen a person's resistance to losing his faith, but why should this matter to God or at all, since he can choose to maintain you're faith if he wishes by not testing it. You can cite having these tests as free will inducing but with or without them a person has a choice to be faithful or not. To the atheist it almost certainly makes no difference, as upon being tested by pain he will not think this pain to have anything to do with God. Only his spirit will be strengthened and without these tests he would have no purpose for this strength.

In which case these tests ARE pointless and unjustified for an atheist?? hmmm... Late nights and other negative mind-affecting factors in play here... probably not thinking straight.

Will return to ponder upon this later.