If you suddenly suffer from a serious illness, become disabled, or experience a drastic decline in your quality of life, or if someone close to you is killed, murdered, or tortured, should you blame God for it? Certainly, the answer cannot be that it is God's will. Nobody should have to endure suffering like that. How can we still believe in God who allows this to go on in our lives? How does "the entire book of Job" and every other Psalm of David contribute to the answering of this dilemma about the doctrinal topics of Providence and the Attributes of God?

I heard a Christian apologist Dr. Frank Turek making a claim that God designed Jupiter that big so He would protect us from destructive meteorites, because the gravity of Jupiter (which is twice as strong as the earth's) pulls these objects to crash on its surface. Photographic evidence has shown that very huge meteorites, some even bigger than the size of the earth, have crashed on the surface of Jupiter thereby making Jupiter a planet that saves lives according to the plan of God. If so, how do they then reconcile this with how another meteorite *did* crash on the Gulf of Mexico which caused the dinosaurs to be extinct?

If God respects our free will and doesn't interfere in our decisions, why should we pray for things (petition)? For example, if I pray for my daily bread, God cannot force me to go to the store, buy bread, and bring it home. All these choices are decisions I must make freely. Or if I ask for a good grade on my exam, God cannot force me to study, or choose my answers. How can God help me without breaking my free will? Furthermore, He already knows the future and exactly what grade I will get (which is a part of His perfect plan), so why should I pray for a certain grade?

***I have been given an assignment to address the view held by some people that "the Universe provides."*** My first thought was to investigate the New Age movement and beliefs but, although I found an [extensive *Wikipedia* article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age#Beliefs_and_practices) , I could find nothing specific about this. I have an old friend who has delved into many New Age philosophies and absolutely believes that many of her prayers addressed to the Universe have been answered in positive ways. According to one ‘Happiness Coach’ you can you make the Universe work in your favour. You just need to set a clear intention and ask the Universe to know what you want. Then you just open your mind and let it come to you from unexpected sources. "The Universe always aligns with your beliefs." I suspect that this idea is not new - worship of the sun, moon and stars goes back into antiquity; likewise astronomy and belief that planets can affect and influence people and events. I have to answer the question "What scripture addresses this idea that "the Universe provides". Unfortunately, I'm running out of time and could use some help in finding Scriptures to present the biblical view. P.S. As a Bible-believing Christian I do not subscribe to the view that the Universe provides. I believe God, the Creator, provides.

My question is NOT about how [soul sleep](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism) advocates interpret Luke 16:19-31 -- that's an exegetical question that has already been asked [elsewhere](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/59681/50422) . Rather, my question is about understanding, from the soul sleep perspective, why God would, in His providence, let a parable like [the rich man and Lazarus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus) be part of the canon, knowing in advance that it would mislead so many people to the wrong conclusion (that the dead are conscious). God, being omniscient and all powerful, surely knew that millions of Christians would take elements of the parable at face value and would wrongly conclude that the spirit of a person remains conscious after death. Why would God let an inspired parable mislead so many people like that? _______ Related questions: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83011/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83846/50422 Similar question, but about a different controversial topic: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83092/50422 _____ #### Am I asking a [loaded question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question) ? From Wikipedia: *"A loaded question is a form of [complex question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question) that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt)."* My question certainly has an assumption, namely, that Luke 16:19-31 has led possibly millions of Christians to conclude that the dead are conscious. Is this assumption controversial? I don't think so. Whenever I've asked people for the biblical basis for the dead being conscious, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is easily in the top 3 most cited passages (see for example [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/25699/38524) , [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/89009/50422) and [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/89016/50422)) . Similarly, the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus#Afterlife_doctrine) on the parable says: > **Most Christians believe in the immortality of the soul** and particular judgment and see the story as consistent with it, or **even refer to it to establish these doctrines like St. Irenaeus did**. Therefore, the assumption is warranted, and thus the question is not loaded. _______ UPDATE: user 'Hold To The Rod' has recently made a very solid case [here](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/74082/38524) for viewing the setting of the parable as realistic, including supporting quotes from a copious number of ante-Nicene Fathers who openly advocated a conscious intermediate state. In the same line, I also suggest the curious reader to take a look at the questions https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89518/50422 & https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89140/50422 . This reinforces the premise of my question: if Soul Sleep is true, then the early Church was **MASSIVELY** misled.

The Bible very rarely uses the term God's Plan, for instance: Ps 107:11 (NIV): > because they rebelled against God’s commands and despised the plans of the Most High. Micah 2:3 (NIV): > Therefore, the Lord says: “I am planning disaster against this people, from which you cannot save yourselves. Acts 2:23 (NIV) > This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. In common parlance, a plan is something we make for the immediate, near or distant future, subject to certain clauses and conditions. One wonders whether God for whom the past, present and future of human beings are part of His Will, would ever consider something as part of His Plan. That could be the reason why Jesus always used the term God's Will. My question therefore is: according to Catholic scholars, are the terms God's Plan and God's Will one and the same ?

This was prompted by an answer to another question of mine which quoted a source that noted alternative vocalization of the Masoretic text as an example of liberal tendencies in the NRSV. ------ This question is aimed at understanding the viewpoint of those groups who endorse the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as outlined in the Chicago Statement . I understand that there are likely sub-groups under this umbrella, and this is intended as an overview question of perspectives within that group. From the statement: > WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. Clearly, neither the consonantal decisions of the Masoretic text nor vowels of any sort were part of the autographs, with the implication that these are, strictly speaking, outside the purview of the statement. However, as noted above and in the linked answer, people (myself included!) seem to feel uneasy when encountering emendations to the Masoretic text. To what extent do various traditions under the umbrella of 'inerrancy' value the Masoretic text, both its vocalization and consonantal textual decisions? This may include the degree to which these decisions are considered inspired, instructive, illustrative of authorial intent, or whatever other facets of 'valuable' can be brought to bear. ----- Appendix: A few examples of questions on Biblical Hermeneutics where we have discussed emendations to the MT that are understood by many Christian translations: Psalm 22:16 , Deut 32:8 , Psalm 19:4 , Obad 7 , Ecc 7:27 , Job 6:14 , Hosea 11:12 . These include some examples where the emendations are purely conjectural and others where they are based on alternative witnesses, most prominently the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint.

Disclaimer: This question is not intended to suggest that God is not sovereign under Arminianism. It is simply a question for clarification, as I haven't really found a detailed description. Also, I have read [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3563/how-does-the-arminian-view-of-salvation-account-for-gods-sovereignty) but it's not quite what I'm asking. When I ask "What is the Arminian view of God's providence", I am not referring to soteriology (specifically, at least - it would be included) but to how God brings about His plan, or any given part thereof. Say God decides he wants to bring X about - how does he 'arrange' things to achieve the desired outcome? For example, a Reformed Christian might say that God determines things and need not take into account free will so can easily bring about X, while a Molinist would say God arranges the circumstances so humans will freely act in a way that brings about X. Is this within the scope of Arminianism? What level of detail do Arminians say God's plan has? Does it include individual human actions? I realize that's several questions but they all fit within this one/are details that I would hope to be included in the answer to the main question.

I think everything - everything that takes place in our hearts, and everything that takes place externally - happens so according to God's plan. I don't think my opinion conflicts with our free will. The catechism teaches that God's plan requires cooperation of his free creations, but it also teaches that "all are laid bare before his eyes, even the things that are yet to come to existence through the free action of his creatures". I think that God had incorporated all our free actions and decisions (which we are responsible for) into his plan from the very beginning. Like, even Judas' betrayal was a part of God's plan (he clearly foresaw that Judas will betray Jesus from the beginning; and he permitted it to happen in keeping with his plan. It is Judas own downfall and it was his own decision that he will betray Jesus, but God incorporated this Judas' free will into his plan). If something - however tiny or insignificant it can be - can happen unexpectedly outside of God's plan, how can Church be so sure that our final ultimate end will be achieved? So my question is: Is it correct to say that "everything - everything that takes place in our hearts and mind, and everything that takes place in external world - happens according to God's plan"? Please answer according to Catholicism.

Non Christian asking a question here. My understanding is that Christianity claims that: A) Souls are immortal. B) Everything that exists (except God Himself) needs to be continually maintained by God, or it'll simply disappear. This seems to me to be contradictory. Assuming souls are not an exception to the above rule, it seems to me that immortality means that something will exist as long as God sees fit to maintain it. My problem with this is that surely God can maintain anything indefinitely, so there's nothing special about Souls. God could maintain a speck of dust indefinitely, say. One could say that souls being immortal isn't an inherent trait, but a prediction of sorts. It's not that souls *can* exist forever that makes them special; it's that they *will* exist forever. However, I've yet to see any Christian argue for this view. Regards, Peter.

In Colossians 1:16-17, it talks about how the world was made by Jesus and for Jesus. But it also says that "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together", so why didn't we all die and the universe, fall apart when Jesus died as it says that "in him all things hold together". Does this mean that Jesus's death wasn't fully death? It's alright if you aren't a Protestant and you answer the question but it would be preferable to hear an answer from a Protestant.

In the 22nd annual meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee , they released a statement that said: > Jews and Christians share the heritage of the biblical testimony of God's relationship with the human family throughout history. Our Scriptures bear witness to both individuals and the people as a whole being called, taught, guided and protected by Divine Providence. In light of this sacred history, Catholic and Jewish participants in the meeting responded to emerging opportunities and difficulties facing religious belief and practice in today's world. Why, in the official statement above, signed by Catholic Church and Jews, is 'Divine Providence' used, and not 'Holy Spirit'? Perhaps there is an ontological difference between 'Divine Providence' and 'Holy Spirit'? If so, can anyone explain what the difference is?

This question has been nagging at me for a while, how can one tell the difference between honest-to-God inspiration from the Holy Spirit and thoughts that are induced by themselves out of the needs or fears of the person. The Spirit is described as a 'still small voice' which can be strikingly similar to the things you tell yourself if you want to convince yourself of something. Example: I have this friend who went on about three dates with a guy before he proposed to her claiming he had prayed to God and received revelation from the Spirit that they were meant to be together. She of course didn't buy into it and rejected him flat out, because he had convinced himself of revelation that was simply untrue, no matter much he wanted it to be. How can we prevent ourselves from making similar mistakes?

Is there some biblical verses that would support how one could differentiate spiritual guidance with our own intuition? By mistake we (at least, I) do think sometimes take decision based on my own wish without knowing if that is what God wants when we are satisfied with the the direction we move. How do you help yourself in this regard?

Since the Bible states that God has a plan for us, and he is in charge of our lives, then if he wants your family member or friend to die of cancer, and you don't, and you are praying for him to get rid of the cancer, will you change God's mind?

Has the Catholic church ever put forth a theological theory or statement as to why the Reformation happened? Please note.... I'm not asking about *how* the Reformation happened. History *is* what it is. I want to know whether or not the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Reformation has any theological significance (i.e. some kind of "Great Apostasy" or prophetic fulfillment) in the grand scheme of salvation history. Surely the doctrine of Divine Providence can nail down some sort of idea as to why this gigantic occurrence has happened.