Is there needless suffering?

[Don_L]

This appears to be an inexhaustable topic and since it is involved with great mystery we cannot provide (just as science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God) any perfectly clear answer to satisfy the doubting Thomases, but we can provide the author of everything’s trustworthy words that suffering has benefit. Why? Simply because an all loving God has invited us to pick up our cross daily and follow Him.

It is also interesting that so many commenters viewed suffering only from a physical point of view, when our construct as humans is both, body and soul. Perhaps if we think of Christ in the Garden sweating blood, even before he was physically tormented and crucified, we can realize that suffering can often be more difficult without actual pain.

 

[donsnow]

Another example of Christ suffering non-physical pain is when he looked at Jerusalem, and cried.

I would presume that most of us here have suffered our own emotional and spiritual anguishes and agonies. Many of such anguishes and agonies were coupled with love.

How about you, R Daneel?

 

[Don_L]

"So to trust prayer as a means to help sick people is unreasonable, since it is not supported by data. "

It would be nice to discuss your findings with Lazerus, and the hundreds of thousands who have left their crutches and such at Religious places, such as Fatima, Lourdes, and the Cathedrals in Canada and Mexico.

 

[Spirithound]

I agree that in religious matters, faith plays an important part. That is not a problem, the problem occurs when reason and faith are at odds with each other. There are many instances of this, according my observations. One is the purpose of this thread. If one fully believes that suffering is “good”, then it is illogical to try to prevent or alleviate it. One simply accepts the “good” and does not “fight it”. The fact that normal human beings (and of course this includes Catholics ) do not "cherish pain and suffering tells me that they do not really believe that pain is “good”. This would be a pure contradiction.

What is wrong with the answers I have given?

As a matter of fact, there are two different methods to deal with the problem of suffering.

One is the assertion that all suffering are “beneficial” or “good” - because they lead to some “greater good”, which is so very desirable that the pain and suffering is but a small “price” to pay. Here the pain and suffering are a logical precursor to the good.This concept falls on its face when one contemplates the suffering of children and animals, especially if the pain and suffering ends in death.

This is another good response that CS Lewis talks about in The Problem of Pain. I think this one makes fewer “demands” on Divine Providence since a human benefactor could alleviate the suffering of a person before it reaches the maximum benefit, without depriving the sufferer of something they need. The suffering of children is explained in the same way as the first example: everyone can improve. I don’t remember fully what Lewis says about the suffering of animals, but it was good.

Another one is to assert that pain and suffering is the consequence of man’s fallen status. Here the pain and suffering does not necessarily lead to some greater good, they are the result of the allegedly misused free will. The problem here is that God allowed the free will to lead to fatal consequences. And that is also illogical. A loving parent certainly allows some freedom to his child, but that freedom is always limited and curtailed lest it would lead to fatal consequences. Love is not compatible with excessive permissiveness. So, this defense also leads to a contradiction.

I generally put less stock in this theory, although certainly it is sometimes the correct one. The Bible tells us that death itself is a consequence of original sin. Suffering in hell is also the consequence for personal sin. I will comment more on this once I’ve read the rest of the thread.

 

[donsnow]

“When asked about the apperently needless suffering we all experience (first or second hand) the answer is much less satisfying. The Christians assert that contrary to all appearances, all those horrible sufferings must have some beneficial effects, which more than compensate for the suffering. Of course they can never bring up any specific answer, they just repeat that it is a matter of faith."

“Translated: “if it looks like unnecessary suffering, if it cannot be explained why that suffering is necessary, then it is most probably unnecessary suffering”. But Christians have a retort this one, too. They maintain that we are not privy to the information which would explain why those sufferings are actually beneficial, and this lack of information prevents us from forming a proper value judgment. Now this one is sheer cop-out. But, let’s accept it provisionally, and examine its ramifications.”

“2) About the suffering caused by human acts . . . But if all the suffering caused by these humans is necessary for some unspecified greater goods, then these people just further God’s plan for the victims.”

“3) Lastly, some posters ask if anyone can prove that there is unnecessary evil in the world.”

No evils is necessary. As I used to say, “An evil will demolish the world.”

“According to the acts of the Catholic Church, there is unnecessary suffering in the world. Therefore - according to the acts of the Catholic Church - God allows unnecessary suffering. Therefore - according to the acts of the Catholic Church - God is not “loving”.

Think about it.”

Saving the environment is a charitable attempt if you would love to join.
The God may not be LOVE in your eyes.
Your BELOVED ones are still living on the EARTH.

Teru Wong

Good morning, Teru Wong,

I’ve read this post, at least twice, I think. You have several good points.

I would like to say that this Christian submits that people bring their own needless sufferings upon themselves, by their wrong choices. Choices with consequences not apparently beneficial to themselves or others. That’s where I think needless suffering comes from.
However, other posters are correct to say that from all suffering, God can bring good. For example, the WWII Holocaust of millions of Jews were slain by Nazi Germans, some tortured before they died. From all that suffering, the surviving Jews decided they must obtain a Jewish homeland, to protect themselves from that ever happening again. And, the result of all that suffering was that decision and the result of that decision is today’s state of Israel.

I would like to repeat, that although all types of suffering seem contrary to a loving God, that suffering does not contradict God. In short, that there is suffering of any type does not disprove God’s love.

 

[o_mlly]

According to the acts of the Catholic Church, there is unnecessary suffering in the world. Therefore - according to the acts of the Catholic Church - God allows unnecessary suffering. Therefore - according to the acts of the Catholic Church - God is not “loving”.

The atheist’s best, yet false, argument is that one cannot simultaneously hold that God exists, is omnibenevolent, omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent, and evil exists.

If God is all the above, so the argument goes, a God who is all good, knows, all and always gets His way would not allow evil to exist.

Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft came up with six solutions:
a) God may use short-term evils for long-range goods.
b) God created the possibility of evil, but not the evil itself, and that free will was necessary for the highest good of real love. Kreeft says that being all-powerful doesn’t mean being able to do what is logically contradictory, i.e., giving freedom with no potentiality for sin.
c) God’s own suffering and death on the cross brought about his supreme triumph over the devil.
d) God uses suffering to bring about moral character, quoting apostle Paul in Romans 5:1-5.
e) Suffering can bring people closer to God.
f) The ultimate “answer” to suffering is Jesus himself, who, more than any explanation, is our real need.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[Don_L]

beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Catholic/2001/11/Finding-Gods-Face-In-The-Mystery-Of-Suffering.aspx?p=1

A reading of this excellent article on the nature (Mystery) of suffering, by George Weigel ought to answer most questions.

To answer the original question, suffering not united with Christ in love, is as Fulton Sheen used to preach -the worst of all worlds - “the cross without Christ.”

 

[peacefulwarrior]

Is there needless suffering…

Well, go to somalia, nigeria, liberia… etc. YES!!!

Somethings are pointless…

Remember suffering can bring people closer to God OR cause them to reject God all together.

 

[Don_L]

You are greatly confused, I’m afraid. Your calling the ***exercizing ***of free will “giving it up”

If I take an oath of chastity, am I giving up my free will to remain chaste?

If I promise (on the alter) my new wife to stay with her forever, am I giving up my free will or choosing to use it in a speccif manner.

Your definition would mean the minute you use free will in a certain manner you no longer have it - that’s terribly confused thinkin.

 

[Don_L]

R Daneel

"Think about doctors. They take the Hyppocratic oath, so they give up their “free will” "

You are greatly confused, I’m afraid. You’re calling the ***exercizing ***of free will “giving it up”

If I take an oath of chastity, am I giving up my free will to remain chaste?

If I promise (on the altar) my new wife to stay with her forever, am I giving up my free will or choosing to use it in a specific manner?

Your definition would mean the minute you use free will in a certain manner, you no longer have it - that’s terribly confused thinking.