Is suffering always evil?

[Aloysium]

Are you against being watched by God all the time? . . . watching like a good “peeping Tom”. And judge you if you were not pious . . .

This sounds persecutory, I would surmise that it arises from a self conscious awareness where one is disconnected from just being oneself.

I would describe our existence as a participation in an infinite ocean of compassion. Compassion understands and is merciful.

Only God, who is Love itself, can judge. It sounds like judgement runs through your being, feeling criticized, criticizing others.

 

[tonyrey]

Then why is everyone opposed to Big Brother monitoring all our behaviour?

You have given the game away, Pallas! You prefer to be in the “egocentric predicament” rather than share everything you are and everything you have with another person, even if that person has given you everything you are and everything you have. If you ever have the misfortune to be totally isolated from society through no fault of your own you will realise you would be in hell if you were on your own forever… The essence of love is to be united to others and liberated from ourselves and our imperfections. We are not intended to exist in “splendid isolation” but as members of an immense family who are not afraid to be seen for what we really are. Sartre was mistaken in his view that hell is other people. Solitary confinement is the worst punishment that can be inflicted on anyone. I’m quite sure you’re the last person to want that!

Are we biological computers incapable of original thought and moral responsibility?

• These are not mutually exclusive. Read the “Andromeda Strain” by Michael Crichton. We are at least 95% biological computers.

Why not 100%?

Our track record has succeeded in polluting the planet, endangering all life and creating horrific injustice.

• Yes, that, too. Along with alleviating a lot of pain and misery, which could have been eliminated by God, if only he cared. Too bad he does not.

At the cost of making us incapable of self-determination? On the one hand you don’t mind losing your freedom and on the other you hate the thought of losing your privacy!

So if the majority became evil we would accept unquestioningly as the norm?

No, not just the majority, everyone. If everyone would be evil, then to be evil would be considered normal. By you, too.

So, if all the moral evils would be prevented, no one would consider their absence to be noteworthy. And it would be so much nicer than this current arrangement.

If everyone were evil life would be hell on earth! If you were being tortured you would hardly consider it normal even if everyone else shared your fate. You would prefer to be dead. So your conclusion doesn’t follow. Sartre was right in this respect. If you’re not free you’re not a person.

You, in particular, object to any curtailment of your freedom by prying eyes! I share your view as far as strangers are concerned but not those I love and trust. For much of my life I used to be negative and pessimistic until I realised I was being unrealistic and making myself unnecessarily miserable. We can’t make others happy, let alone ourselves, unless we are positive and not allow evil to dominate our thoughts. I read an article today about a priest who lost both hands and an eye when he opened a letter bomb sent to him because he was strongly opposed to apartheid. He forgave the would-be assassin and is now inspiring others to overcome their disabilities. I’m quite sure a biological computer wouldn’t be capable of such a heroic achievement…

 

[tonyrey]

Are you against being watched by God all the time? Too bad, because whether you like it or not, he is everywhere, in your bedroom always watching like a good “peeping Tom”. And judge you if you were not pious enough when you made love to your spouse. How can you stand this constant “supervision” is beyond me.

Catholics are not Puritans!

1604 God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator’s eyes and this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: “and God blessed them, and God said to them: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.’”

1605 Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: “It is not good that the man should be alone.” The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” i.e., his counterpart, his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been “in the beginning”: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.”

 

[tonyrey]

The answer is obviously “No”. Life without any form of challenge is worthless.

 

[Richca]

Exactly how Original Sin arose historically is a secondary issue that admits of some flexibility.

I do not agree with "how original sin arose historically is a secondary issue that admits of some flexibility. I don’t think St Paul thinks it is a secondary issue and he is clear on how original sin with its consequence of death arose, namely, the first man Adam and his sin. Nor would I say the Church thinks that it is a secondary issue. Original sin, as the CCC teaches, fundamentally answers the question “from whence does evil come from” and the present state of affairs in the world.

“The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.” (CCC#265)

Our first parents are none other than Adam and Eve, the first couple. "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female…? (Matt. 19: 4).

(#375). The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

(CCC#376) By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die. The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman, and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”.

(CCC#383) “God did not create man a solitary being. From the beginning, “male and female he created them” (⇒ Gen 1:27). This partnership of man and woman constitutes the first form of communion between persons” (GS 12 # 4).

How original sin arose historically is very clear from the teaching of the Church and Holy Scripture (cf. also the Council of Trent). It arose from the fault freely committed by our first parents, Adam and Eve, the first man and first woman, and it is transmitted by propagation or descent from Adam and Eve, not from Adam and some beast.

 

[Richca]

You may be correct in saying that catholics can embrace the opinion of polygenism presently without detriment to the dogma of original sin and other dogmatic truths, though I’m not certain about this. The only document from the Church that I have been able to locate since Humani Generis in support of your view is from the INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION, COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God*(2004)

 

[tonyrey]

Upon further reflection, I think I need to explain the last above paragraph of mine so as not to mislead others into believing something which in my view is not the teaching of the Church. In my view, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches beyond a reasonable doubt that Adam and Eve are the first man and first woman of the human race, they are the first couple of the human race from which descended the rest of humanity "Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor (God) made all nations to inhabit the whole earth” (CCC#360). Holy Scripture, in my reading of it, is also clear that Adam and Eve are the first two humans:
"You made Adam, and you made his wife Eve
to be his helper and support;
and from these two the human race has come.
You said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone;
let us make him a helper like himself.’ (Tobit 8:6).
The CCC#360 footnote #226 directs us to the above passage from Tobit.

 

[tonyrey]

The upshot of this discussion is that suffering is not always evil - which leads to another thread:

Is suffering ever pointless?

 

[ANV]

Creating suffering is evil.

 

[tonyrey]

Creating suffering is evil.

So you prefer to die without any warning that death is nigh?

 

[ericc]

The upshot of this discussion is that suffering is not always evil - which leads to another thread:

Is suffering ever pointless?

It can be if it didn’t bring about desired results. Examples:

1. Ignoring a minor pain which could lead to fatal developments if not taken care of in a timely manner. The whole idea for being able to sense pain is to tell our body that there is something wrong. Ignoring it render that signaling device pointless.
2. If the sufferings of Christ for us did not effect in us a change of heart for the better, his sufferings may seem to be pointless or “wasted” or “unappreciated”.
3. Doing a lot of hard work blood , sweat and tears and yet not successful in the endeavor. Some may deem the effort pointless/futile especially where the chance of success is slim.