God’s benevolence vs. pain and suffering

[Huiou_Theou]

No, not always. What is your point?

The evil of which you speak is not objective – the person’s attitude changes whether or not it is ‘suffering’.
So a person has the freedom to choose to suffer or not.

Pain is communication and consistancy – it is not intrinsic evil.
What makes it ‘evil’?, I am still waiting for an answer.

Athletes know they can run in another race, and perhaps win it.
The only really sore loosers are the Tonya Hardings of the world.
She ‘suffered’ all right.

Again, what is actually intrinstically “evil” about pain. The fact that you, personally, don’t wish to go through it? Or that sometimes you can’t avoid it?

A little “baybee” suffers when you remove a toy from it.
The tears well up, and the child is sad.
Why? Because in their infantile pain “rolodex”, there is nothing more painful to compare its present suffering to. Therefore, it is the worst suffering possible to them in their private world.

It is not clear to me that a world with less pain would reduce suffering at all. Perhaps people would be more spoiled.

Even heaven is to have everlasting horror to gaze upon – eg. those in hell – an everlasting reminder of what could have been.

So, in this imaginary world you have proposed – all I see is a bunch of robots, spoiled (unhappy) brats, or God alone. But not us.

A free will is created to be free – that is – independent of God.
The moment you try to “dissect” a free will – you make a machine out of it. Don’t try to tell me that god can reach in and pith a free will, and is still free.

How can people really suffer less in your world? (assuming pain was reduced).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

No “if” needed. None of us is qualified to make that judgment call for others.

Not at all, actually the exact opposite. I maintain that only the sufferer is justified to make a value judgment about his or her suffering. If the sufferer voluntarily wishes to empower someone else to make that call, that is fine.

That is nonsenical.

 

[Hitetlen]

Huiou Theou:

The evil of which you speak is not objective – the person’s attitude changes whether or not it is ‘suffering’.

That is true, subjective in the sense that it cannot gauged by others, it happens to the person in question.
Huiou Theou:

So a person has the freedom to choose to suffer or not.

Tell that to the widow who misses his spouse, and suffers because of his loss. Just go and tell him, that suffering is his choice, and just should “choose” to be happy. But then run quickly and fast, because he may just kick you - and you should not be surprised.
Huiou Theou:

Pain is communication and consistancy – it is not intrinsic evil.

What the heck does this mean? (Though communicating with some posters can be a pain in the …)
Huiou Theou:

What makes it ‘evil’?, I am still waiting for an answer.

Ask the kid in the hospital who was beaten within an inch of his life by his drunken father or burned by a wildfire. Or you may ask someone buried under some rubble due to an earthquake. While you are at it, you could advise him to stop “choosing” to suffer.
Huiou Theou:

Again, what is actually intrinstically “evil” about pain. The fact that you, personally, don’t wish to go through it? Or that sometimes you can’t avoid it?

Never have I said that all pains are evil.
Huiou Theou:

It is not clear to me that a world with less pain would reduce suffering at all. Perhaps people would be more spoiled.

Suffering is elongated pain.
Huiou Theou:

How can people really suffer less in your world? (assuming pain was reduced).

See above.
Huiou Theou:

That is nonsenical.

I guess you do not understand. If a pain has an associated “good” with it (assumed that it does), only the person who is in pain can make a judgment if the associated good is worth the pain or not.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Tell that to the widow who misses his spouse, and suffers because of his loss. Just go and tell him, that suffering is his choice, and just should “choose” to be happy. But then run quickly and fast, because he may just kick you - and you should not be surprised.

I have been talking about athletes.
Though my grandmother remarried, and was quite happy in her second, and even her third marriage. Sure, she misses her former husbands.

Why, however, do you suggest that I tell them that “suffering is their choice”? I have been talking about athletes.

I can say to an athlete “you can still compete again.”

I can say to the widow “I think you’ll see him again some day.”

It amounts to the same thing, but I don’t have to be cruel in my delivery of the message. Why do you suggest that I should be?

Ask the kid in the hospital who was beaten within an inch of his life by his drunken father or burned by a wildfire. Or you may ask someone buried under some rubble due to an earthquake. While you are at it, you could advise him to stop “choosing” to suffer.

My conversation is with you.

But the pain of being beaten communicates to the child that the father hates him, and that his body is being damaged.
The pain to the person buried under the rubble consistently tells them that they are in danger of dying.

Pain is communication – and consistancy.
Your reply shows that you do know what that means.
Communication is a way of bringing about change in another person (sometimes they don’t like it, sometimes they embrace the pain to spite their own face.).

If the child did not have pain – he might not run from the drunk or take care of himself such that healing could occur.
Personally, I am glad my arm hurt when it was broken. I was careful with it, then. I was very upset with the one who broke it.

The evil in these scenarios is not the pain, but something or someone else.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I guess you do not understand. If a pain has an associated “good” with it (assumed that it does), only the person who is in pain can make a judgment if the associated good is worth the pain or not.

Kind of a prolonged conversation. But, I do believe God knows everone’s pain – even in the subjective sense.

Not even a person in pain can know if it isn’t worth it – for the personal payback may not come until a later time.

Blessed are the poor. The kingdom of God is theirs.
Best wishes to you on your quest.

 

[deekod1967]

First off - I am a practising Catholic and I believe in God - infact I dont even have to believe because - I feel His presence when I close my eyes and pray!

That said - the suffering in the world is a “stumbling block” for me also. I have been recently reading Sr. Faustina’s diaries, and I have also read Sr. Lucia’s diaries and I noticed that both Jesus and Our Lady of Fatima gave positive acknowledgements for sufferings made in the correct humble manner (as Jesus did at Calvary).

But why must we suffer like this? Why must we be like Jesus on the cross? Why must we suffer for His Mercy? Is it all down to original sin? Is it all so we can prove ourselves worthy of the Beatific Vision? What is all this suffering for? Why did my Father have a parylising and debilatating stroke aged 40 with four young kids to look after? If we are not to know the answers to these questions but simply have Faith, it is all too easy to see God as someone who doesnt care for us, but I feel in my heart that that is not true! Is this doubt itself just more sufferings to prove our worth? These questions reach deep into my soul and tear at it.

My apologies for my ramblings, and I hope I havent offended anyone (or scandalised God in anyway), I’m just voicing my latest “stumbling block” of Faith - I know I’ll find a way around it with your help.

O Lord, I believe - help my unbelief!

 

[Hitetlen]

Huiou Theou:

I have been talking about athletes.

Yes, and I agree that the athlete’s pain is self-inflicted, and thus it bears no consequence of the subject.
Huiou Theou:

But the pain of being beaten communicates to the child that the father hates him, and that his body is being damaged. The pain to the person buried under the rubble consistently tells them that they are in danger of dying.

Yes, some pains can be justified because they do carry a beneficial side effect. I don’t deny it. Your examples of pain being a forewarning effect are precisely those kinds of pains. There are a few people who simply lack the nerve endings to experience pain, and they never really learn to avoid it, so they ususally die prematurely.

But some pains cannot be justified on this ground. And God’s benevolence is in question because he does not step in and prevent those pains.

Let’s pick a less violent example: a father sees his young child to try to poke into a power outlet. The child has no idea about the danger and is too young to understand an explanation. Therefore the father gives a gentle slap on the child’s hand whenever the child tries to reach the outlet. In this case a gentle pain will teach the child not to do certain things, even if he is unable to understand “why” (negative reinforcement). This type of pain is perfectly explained and justified. However, if the father grabs a baseball bat, and breaks the kid’s arm every time he reaches to the outlet, that action cannot be justified by the same “end”. Either you can give me another “justification”, or you must concede that God is not benevolent.
Huiou Theou:

But, I do believe God knows everone’s pain – even in the subjective sense.

I don’t think so, but that is just a difference in opinion and not really relevant.
Huiou Theou:

Not even a person in pain can know if it isn’t worth it – for the personal payback may not come until a later time.

That is a possibility for some instances and pretty much impossible for others. But be as it may, the person in question is the one who is qualified to make the decision, based upon the information he may have. God could explain him the reasons for his upcoming suffering, and tell him about the good effects it will bring along. Then he could offer him the informed choice. In the lack of such communication and lack of choice in the matter, the person is justified to draw his conclusions. If he does not see the alleged benefit, he will justly deem the pain as unnecessary and call God not benevolent.

I will give another example. Suppose that someone survives an explosion on a boat. He suffers for a long time before he is torn into pieces by sharks. If God deemed it was his time to go, he could have arranged that he died in the explosion itself. It would not have mattered either way, so his prolonged suffering had no purpose. No one ever learned about his fate, so we can exclude some unspecified benefit for others. To allow such a fate is cruel in my book. Is it in yours?

 

[Mike_O]

Hitetlen:

I will give another example. Suppose that someone survives an explosion on a boat. He suffers for a long time before he is torn into pieces by sharks. If God deemed it was his time to go, he could have arranged that he died in the explosion itself. It would not have mattered either way, so his prolonged suffering had no purpose. No one ever learned about his fate, so we can exclude some unspecified benefit for others. To allow such a fate is cruel in my book. Is it in yours?

As your examples grow more and more preposterous, it is surprising–and perhaps expected–to see the fervor with which people have continued to attempt to undeceive you.

It is hard to imagine that you could continue to delude yourself with such ludicrous “reasoning,” but, as a piece of advice to those who have charitably made the effort: This one is intent on having it his way.

If you put forth some perfectly logical reply to whatever new example he concocts involving brutality, rape, murder, shark attack, or whatever other heinous disaster his rather morbid curiosity can devise, he will insist on his own definition of “justice” and uphold his own standards of cruelty. God is good, but do not tell him; there is always a maiming, a plane crash, a deceased infant with which he can spin the argument and deny, reject, and obfuscate.

Remember that you argue with someone who has rejected God, who has rejected the Truth Himself. What good comes of carrying on debating the essence of the One Whose very existence the original poster stridently denies?

 

[doomhammer]

Mike O:

Remember that you argue with someone who has rejected God, who has rejected the Truth Himself. What good comes of carrying on debating the essence of the One Whose very existence the original poster stridently denies?

It is kind of strange how so many people accepted to discuss Hitleten’s complete baseless arguments. His “definition” of God is incomplete and thus false. The whole reasoning is seriously damaged.
It is also surprising that nobody has mentioned a fundamental text on this matter:
JPII’s Apostolic Letter “Salvifici Doloris” which first sentence states: “Declaring the power of salvific suffering, the Apostle Paul says: “In my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church””. Its chapters for the ones who really want to seriously learn about the subject: Introduction, THE WORLD OF HUMAN SUFFERING, THE QUEST FOR AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF THE MEANING OF SUFFERING, JESUS CHRIST SUFFERING CONQUERED BY LOVE, SHARERS IN THE SUFFERING OF CHRIST, THE GOSPEL OF SUFFERING, THE GOOD SAMARITAN, CONCLUSION.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Let’s pick a less violent example:

However, if the father grabs a baseball bat, and breaks the kid’s arm every time he reaches to the outlet,

I will give another example. Suppose that someone survives an explosion on a boat. He suffers for a long time before he is torn into pieces by sharks.

I see.
Good luck figuring it out.

 

[stella95]

There’s immense suffering in the world. If this suffering has meaning in the long run thanks to God’s love for us, God is good. If God gives us the moral capacity to feel how terrible and unjust the suffering is yet doesn’t care about human suffering and stands back, looking on from a distance, then He is evil.

I’d say the same thing for a world without a God. Nature has given us the intellectual capacity to feel morally outraged by the suffering we see in the world. We have the physical capacity to suffer greatly.

I believe that a world without a God where there is no spiritual meaning to our suffering is evil.

 

[Hitetlen]

Huiou Theou:

I see.
Good luck figuring it out.

I already did…

 

[Hitetlen]

stella95:

There’s immense suffering in the world. If this suffering has meaning in the long run thanks to God’s love for us, God is good. If God gives us the moral capacity to feel how terrible and unjust the suffering is yet doesn’t care about human suffering and stands back, looking on from a distance, then He is evil.

Yes, this is logical.

stella95:

I’d say the same thing for a world without a God. Nature has given us the intellectual capacity to feel morally outraged by the suffering we see in the world. We have the physical capacity to suffer greatly.

Literally speaking “nature” has not given us anything. But, yes, we are able to suffer greatly.

stella95:

I believe that a world without a God where there is no spiritual meaning to our suffering is evil.

I would not use the word “evil” in this context, but indeed the world is not “fair”, the universe does not care about us. This is why we should care about each other.

 

[stella95]

If the universe is not a moral place where do we get our sense of moral compass? If this is the world, if this is all there is, how is it that you believe the world is “unfair”? Why do you think the world should be fair if the world is by its very nature unfair?

If the world is unfair, if nature does not care about us, why care about anyone else? Why not make use of other people as much as you can within the laws your society allows you, invest wisely and retire early to a nice little beach house with your own harem? Why should you increase your own pain by worrying about the suffering of people who live thousands of miles from you? Why should you inconvenience yourself by giving money to the homeless?

It’s one thing to put yourself to the inconvenience of obeying the law because by doing so you’re saving yourself from economic and social chaos. You need a job, an orderly community and a functioning economy in order to retire early to that beach house. Why go beyond that?

 

[Anonymous_1]

Alot of these posts on both sides are very arbitrary which certainly has its place. I am going to check this out later and see if I might be able to add something of pertinence. Pz

 

[dranzal]

The bottom line is we must submit to the will of God and accept that His plan is not just for today or next week, but for eternity. An event that literally temporarily crushes our spirit or breaks our heart will likely have eternal ramifications we couldn’t even imagine.

God told Abraham to sacrifice his son. This must have devastated him. We live in time and often can’t see the big picture. The hike up the mountain and preparation of the altar must have filled Abraham with dread. In the big picture, his experience was a shining example of submission to the will of God. It also provided background for future generations studying the scriptures to connect it with the Transfiguration and with God sacrificing His Son.

As Fr. Corapi says, the greatest evil ever, Deicide, yeilded the greatest good, SALVATION.

We do not know the mind of God. Did he personally nail Jesus to the cross? No. Did he will it? Yes. Thank God.

I am also speaking from experience. I am the mother of 5 beautiful children, one yet to be born. Three weeks ago, my littlest drowned. He was only 2 and we were very close. Only God knows all the good that will come of this. I can imagine some, but have no way of knowing all of it. Is my heart breaking?
You have no idea. Knowing that God will bring about much good gives me peace. Plus, my Gabriel is a saint. As his mom, I couldn’t be happier for him.

Suffering in itself is not evil.

 

[Hitetlen]

stella95:

If the universe is not a moral place where do we get our sense of moral compass?

From our parents, and the general surrounding when we are young and impressionable.

stella95:

If this is the world, if this is all there is, how is it that you believe the world is “unfair”? Why do you think the world should be fair if the world is by its very nature unfair?

I used the word “fair” in quotation marks. The world is what it is, it does not “know” about us.

stella95:

If the world is unfair, if nature does not care about us, why care about anyone else?

Because it has a survival advantage. Humans are both solitary and social animals, we need our social surroundings, even if are able to live alone to a certain extent. Living in a society imposes limits, but it has certain advantages. It is a compromise, and everyone wins. Life in a society is not a zero-sum game.

stella95:

Why not make use of other people as much as you can within the laws your society allows you, invest wisely and retire early to a nice little beach house with your own harem? Why should you increase your own pain by worrying about the suffering of people who live thousands of miles from you? Why should you inconvenience yourself by giving money to the homeless?

It’s one thing to put yourself to the inconvenience of obeying the law because by doing so you’re saving yourself from economic and social chaos. You need a job, an orderly community and a functioning economy in order to retire early to that beach house. Why go beyond that?

See the argument above.

 

[Hitetlen]

dranzal:

The bottom line is we must submit to the will of God and accept that His plan is not just for today or next week, but for eternity. An event that literally temporarily crushes our spirit or breaks our heart will likely have eternal ramifications we couldn’t even imagine.

God told Abraham to sacrifice his son. This must have devastated him. We live in time and often can’t see the big picture. The hike up the mountain and preparation of the altar must have filled Abraham with dread. In the big picture, his experience was a shining example of submission to the will of God. It also provided background for future generations studying the scriptures to connect it with the Transfiguration and with God sacrificing His Son.

As Fr. Corapi says, the greatest evil ever, Deicide, yeilded the greatest good, SALVATION.

We do not know the mind of God. Did he personally nail Jesus to the cross? No. Did he will it? Yes. Thank God.

I am also speaking from experience. I am the mother of 5 beautiful children, one yet to be born. Three weeks ago, my littlest drowned. He was only 2 and we were very close. Only God knows all the good that will come of this. I can imagine some, but have no way of knowing all of it. Is my heart breaking?
You have no idea. Knowing that God will bring about much good gives me peace. Plus, my Gabriel is a saint. As his mom, I couldn’t be happier for him.

Suffering in itself is not evil.

I am very sorry for your loss, and I am glad you can bear it. When my son - at the age of six - was hit by a car (he recovered fully, it was not TOO bad), I was devastated.

Unfortunately I do not share your point of view. You speak of blind trust and blind obedience. That is something I am not capable of accepting. I might be, if only I could be assured that God exists. But that can only happen through logic and reason. I cannot use yet another blind trust to accept God’s existence. That is too much to ask for. It would be one thing to blindly trust God, but a totally different thing to blindly trust humans (or the church).

Best wishes for you and your family.

 

[deekod1967]

Hitetlen,

I also have recently been struggling with why we must suffer to see God in heaven (seemy previous post on this thread). I’ve done some research and thought this might explain things for you…

*APOSTOLIC LETTER
SALVIFICI DOLORIS
*
The first and second parts of Christ’s words about the Final Judgment unambiguously show how essential it is, for the eternal life of every individual, to “stop”, as the Good Samaritan did, at the suffering of one’s neighbour, to have “compassion” for that suffering, and to give some help. In the messianic programme of Christ, which is at the same time the programme of the Kingdom of God, suffering is present in the world in order to release love, in order to give birth to works of love towards neighbour, in order to transform the whole of human civilization into a “civilization of love”. In this love the salvific meaning of suffering is completely accomplished and reaches its definitive dimension. Christ’s words about the Final Judgment enable us to understand this in all the simplicity and clarity of the Gospel.

JP2 the Great

This world is temporary testing ground for the next. The next world will last forever and will be perfect. This current world isnt meant to be perfect - it has evil and suffering for a reason. IE. To allow us the opportunity to resist evil, to prevent suffering when we can, and be humbled when we cant. Those that humbly follow Jesus in suffering silence will remain in His company for eternity.

This world is our one opportunity - as spiritual beings of free will - to choose God and reject our pride forever.

Remember - this is a heavy game we are all playing - and the stakes are high!

I plead with you - swallow your pride, close your eyes for a moment and ask God to come into your heart! Only then will you understand why the overwhelming majority of humanity is religious, not through human logic.

 

[Hitetlen]

deekod1967:

I plead with you - swallow your pride, close your eyes for a moment and ask God to come into your heart! Only then will you understand why the overwhelming majority of humanity is religious, not through human logic.

This was a nice post, thank you for it. However, you are mistaken, by lack of belief has nothing to do with pride. It has everything to do with lack of conviction.

You see, I can understand perfectly if believers trust God completely. What could be more logical and reasonable than to trust an infinitely knowledgable, powerful and benevolent being?

The question is this: how does one accept that such a being exists? Personal experience or trusting others. Trust whom? Trust other human beings, just as imperfect as I am? Trust the scriptures, written by other human beings, just as ignorant as I am?

God does NOT manifest himself to anyone. Allegedly he manifested himself to a selected few, a very long time ago. All we have is their testimony, which is just as unreliable as any other testimony.

To trust God, once one believes his existence is obvious. But to reach that point one must trust other humans. And the difference between me and other humans is only quantitative, not qualitative. Therefore there is no reason to trust them MORE than I trust myself. I trust myself, because I have a valid foundation for this trust, close to 60 years of it. I trust other humans, if they earn my trust. But I do not trust other humans a-priori, without ascertaning first that they deserve my trust. No matter how well-meaning they can be (and you, for example MUST be very well-meaning), that is insufficient grounds for trust.

Do you understand my position?