Is there needless suffering?

[TiggerS]

Right. So the criminals who commit those hideous tortures, rapes and murders are only tools in God’s hands to carry out his plan. That is what I said. The ones, who wish to prevent such acts would attempt to interfere… But maybe you mean something else. Suppose a wicked child molester plans to kidnap, rape and murder a child. If he succeeds, than that was God’s plan. If he fails, than that was God’s plan. Sorry, my friend, you cannot twist is to your liking. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Evil exists as does God’s Goodness and Glory. We have free will and we can choose either - we are completely free to choose either. If I choose evil, then God’s Goodness and Glory and His Grace transcends this. Hence I can be assured in the face of the greatest evil that God’s Goodness and Glory, His Grace, is greater and, mystery very possibly to my insight, is expressed in His creation - as has been the evil perpetrated by the person.

Because God’s Goodness and Glory transcends any evil does not excuse me from the struggle to overcome or to alleviate where evil or suffering exists and a direct response to God’s Grace. And this struggle to overcome or to alleviate flows from God’s Goodness and Glory, His Grace, as origin. The Grace to react and respond to evil with compassion and struggle is greater than evil for one because I did not participate in it nor add to it, but responding to Grace stood against it and chose the Transcending Pathway.

The Cross cruel suffering and death is a stumbling block to unbelievers because Jesus in embracing it and not shrinking from it has sanctified and made it holy at least in potential and through the free will of the sufferer to likewise embrace. This does not change the evil of suffering and death (as it were : “cause”) but it does change in potential the effect of that cause. This is the centre point of our Faith - The Cross - and Resurrection of Jesus. In fact, the symbol of Christianity everywhere is the cross - we ‘march’ under this banner.
Should I therefore regard the sufferings of others as a good - no, because it is up to the free will of the sufferer to either choose one of two goods: to struggle against suffering totally or to embrace it and unite it with the Passion of Jesus and thus it is transformed and united to The Passion is redemptive as are the Sufferings of Jesus.

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ / MMM 09110 Sunday
Warm Greetings, Daneel … and all sharers –
Thank you for your thoughtfully written posting. I shall try to respond and to share with you understandings I have.
I do believe that all suffering is meant to have, ultimately, good effects. You do not look favorably on the basis for this statement, that it is a matter of belief, of faith. But tell me, what other basis is there? It seems to me that reason alone cannot establish such a belief. Both you and I have faith in many things … or we could not live life
I say above that suffering is meant to have good effects … but it certainly is true that those who suffer have choices that can help toward good effects or block them. We are weak and we are not-knowing (I don’t like that word “ignorant”) … and it is easy to block, temporarily, movement toward good.
If we look at our human existence, not taking into account God, the Creator, and the purposes God has in mind, we cannot find a satisfactory explanation for suffering. Let me share with you a much larger and a more comprehensive picture of reality. I will not seek to prove the existence of God. But in my many years of existence (I am approaching seventy-nine) I have laughed and wept in pain many times, I have sung (and I have a good voice) and I have danced (and I dance well, especially German and Polish polkas). I have joyed and sorrowed so deeply sometimes that on several occasions I have begged God to take my life from me. What began in my early life with simple and honest faith and trust has grown over many years into a share in wisdom … and some things I believed have become things I know clearly.
God is Infinite Being, Infinite Love, etc., etc. God, without necessity, chose to make all finite being that exists our of pure Love and out of nothing. I’ve had people ask me, “Why couldn’t God have made us perfect and without suffering from the beginning?” There is a simple answer. Because God wants nothing to do with puppets. There will be no puppets in God’s creation. Are you acquainted with the children’s story The Velveteen Rabbit? A beautiful children’s story … yet filled with deep meanings.
We are human beings who are becoming, maturing, in process … and most people in this lifetime fall pretty far short of the goal God has set. Let me exaggerate in the following statement > It ain’t easy becoming God! We, each human being, together with God, has many choices that, over a lifetime, culminate in one final YES or NO. And this becoming inescapably involves various kinds of sufferings. To grow we must let go of the lesser for the greater, over and over again – or sometimes God RIPS us loose (permits things to happen that rip us loose)
The goal God means every single human being to attain? A real share in God’s own Divine Nature, a share that we must become worthy of. In this long process there are always two general parts > 1) a cleaning up of garbage AND 2) a raising up from human nature to a share in Divine Nature … given as pure gift from God.
Never does God delight in our sufferings. God does delight in all the joys and victories that become ours.
Yes, we are meant by God to comfort our fellow human beings in their sufferings and to alleviate and, in some things, to cause sufferings to disappear. God Wills goodness and love and trust and hope. Sufferings are permitted only … by God … when necessary or beneficial. We little creatures are given so many opportunities to help others who suffer all around us. We are meant to grow and mature by comforting and helping others. Certainly the opportunities surround us without limit.
Good Daneel, without faith in God, tell me, how can we understand any of this. Let us not be negatived by so much suffering around us … but rather let us concentrate on all the good people and all the loving that surround us It is only out of GREAT LOVE that REAL FAITH can be born.
I bless you and your loved ones. John (JohnJFarren)

 

[R_Daneel]

Evil exists as does God’s Goodness and Glory. We have free will and we can choose either - we are completely free to choose either. If I choose evil, then God’s Goodness and Glory and His Grace transcends this. Hence I can be assured in the face of the greatest evil that God’s Goodness and Glory, His Grace, is greater and, mystery very possibly to my insight, is expressed in His creation - as has been the evil perpetrated by the person.

Because God’s Goodness and Glory transcends any evil does not excuse me from the struggle to overcome or to alleviate where evil or suffering exists and a direct response to God’s Grace. And this struggle to overcome or to alleviate flows from God’s Goodness and Glory, His Grace, as origin. The Grace to react and respond to evil with compassion and struggle is greater than evil for one because I did not participate in it nor add to it, but responding to Grace stood against it and chose the Transcending Pathway.

The Cross cruel suffering and death is a stumbling block to unbelievers because Jesus in embracing it and not shrinking from it has sanctified and made it holy at least in potential and through the free will of the sufferer to likewise embrace. This does not change the evil of suffering and death (as it were : “cause”) but it does change in potential the effect of that cause. This is the centre point of our Faith - The Cross - and Resurrection of Jesus. In fact, the symbol of Christianity everywhere is the cross - we ‘march’ under this banner.
Should I therefore regard the sufferings of others as a good - no, because it is up to the free will of the sufferer to either choose one of two goods: to struggle against suffering totally or to embrace it and unite it with the Passion of Jesus and thus it is transformed and united to The Passion is redemptive as are the Sufferings of Jesus.

So, explain to me just how does the suffering of a toddler - who is thrown into a furnace to burn alive - give glory to God? Love was defined as acting in the loved one’s best interest. How is that definition compatible with the fiery death of a child - who does not understand, who cannot “offer” his suffering to God? While you are at it, you might tackle the pain and suffering of all the animals? Does their suffering also give glory to God?

The question is not whether suffering is good, or not. The question is whether suffering is necessary to achieve the greater (or greatest) good? It is precisely the “goodness of God” which needs to be substabtiated. If God’s goodness and love allows needless suffering then there is no such thing as “goodness and love” (as applied to God).

R. Daneel Olivaw

 

[R_Daneel]

I do believe that all suffering is meant to have, ultimately, good effects.

Please elaborate. You say “meant” to have good effects. Do you also suggest that all sufferings will actualy, logically and unavoidably lead to good effects, which good effects could not be reached without those sufferings, and also that those sufferings are never excessive? Or is that just intended - unsuccessfully?

I say above that suffering is meant to have good effects … but it certainly is true that those who suffer have choices that can help toward good effects or block them. We are weak and we are not-knowing (I don’t like that word “ignorant”) … and it is easy to block, temporarily, movement toward good.

Does this apply to uncomprehending human children and animals, too?

If we look at our human existence, not taking into account God, the Creator, and the purposes God has in mind, we cannot find a satisfactory explanation for suffering.

Sure we can. There is suffering because there is no one out there who would be knowledgable (to know about it) and powerful (who could fix it) and who would care (to do what is necessary). Simple answer, isn’t it? To paraphrase the old saying “stuff happens”. It may not be a warm and cozy answer, but answers really are. Nature does not care about us or anything.

Sufferings are permitted only … by God … when necessary or beneficial.

This is what I am interested in.

Now we could go in two different directions. You could attempt to explain how can the suffering of everyone be explained in a simple, logical fashion (without referring to faith). This line has been explored many times, and there was never a good explanation. Obviously, since we don’t have the necessary knowledge. It would be real hard (impossible!) to explain the suffering of uncomprehending small children and the animals - who cannot “offer” their suffering for the greater glory of God.

Or, as I am asking now, how do you try to reconcile the “necessity” of suffering and our attempt to alleviate, prevent, cure and avoid suffering? If we truly and really would believe that all sufferings are logically necessary to gain some greater good, we would not try to prevent, cure and avoid - especially Catholic people, who do not even need an explanation, because they accept the principle on faith. It is understandable that atheists struggle against suffering, since they do not have the simple explanation available to Christians. Now the run-of-mill Catholics who don’t even think about such matters instinctively seek help to avoid, cure, alleviate their suffering. Their instincts tell them that it is not in their best interest to suffer.

But even the infallible Catholic Church behaves as is she believed that suffering must be lessened, avoided, cured and prevented. That is what the Church’s actions (maintaining those hospitals) suggest. And if you really want to struggle with something, then you might contemplate the “necessary aspect” of abortions. If all the abortions would necessarily and logically lead to some greater good (which cannot be achieved in any other way) then the Church would not fight so adamantly against the practice. The Church is supposed to be lead by the Holy Spirit. How come that the Holy Spirit does not enlighten the Church about the positive aspect of abortion?

Best wishes to you, too.

R. Daneel Olivaw

 

[R_Daneel]

Short message. I will not be back for about 2 weeks. Will see your answers (if any) by then.

Best wishes to all.

R. Daneel Olivaw

 

[Benadam]

God’s will is both positive, which means what would be if there were no evil, and permisive, which is what God permits in respect of the nature of His creatures. Pure evil is completely void of God and consequently void of existence. Eternal torment is not what God intends but a necessary evil in respect of His creatures will to exist :twocents:

 

[R_Daneel]

God’s will is both positive, which means what would be if there were no evil, and permisive, which is what God permits in respect of the nature of His creatures. Pure evil is completely void of God and consequently void of existence. Eternal torment is not what God intends but a necessary evil in respect of His creatures will to exist :twocents:

Sorry, this has nothing to do with the obvious efforts of the Catholic Church to prevent and alleviate the existing suffering. These acts speak clearly of the assumption that not all sufferings are necessary. The Catholic Church is supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit - therefore if the Catholic Church acts as if some of the suffering were unnecessary, then those sufferings are unnecessary. The Church is infallible in the matters of morals, and morality most certainly includes the sufferings of innocents.

R. Daneel Olivaw

 

[donsnow]

Now I argee with you that most suffering in the world is unnecessary. Therefore my conclusion is that God is not “good”, if he exists at all.

R. Daneel Olivaw

Hi, R Daneel -

Let me respectfully contradict you. Have you ever been blamed for what another did? Well, it happens all the time to God. God did not put all that suffering into the world. We agree that much suffering is unnecessary. All of the things that happen to me or that come my way are about 95% because of the choices I make; about 3% because of the choices other people have made for and about me; and 2% a direct action by God in my life. Imho. And, I submit, the same goes for everybody else.

Consequently, I think if we all made choices to direct us to God, there would be less unnecessary suffering. If and only if this is true, then aetheists and skeptics cause a lot of unnecessary suffering by choosing to go away from God.
Nevertheless, as it is written, “Even the wicked are appointed for the Day of the Lord”. Which is to say, God even uses aetheists and skeptics to accomplish his far reaching will.

 

[Benadam]

Sorry, this has nothing to do with the obvious efforts of the Catholic Church to prevent and alleviate the existing suffering. These acts speak clearly of the assumption that not all sufferings are necessary. The Catholic Church is supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit - therefore if the Catholic Church acts as if some of the suffering were unnecessary, then those sufferings are unnecessary. The Church is infallible in the matters of morals, and morality most certainly includes the sufferings of innocents.

R. Daneel Olivaw

I can’t seem to connect what you said with the statement I posted. My statement offers reason for the necessity of the most extreme suffering possible. Ifr that kind of suffering is reasonably necessary it follows that all suffering is necessary. If it isn’t well reasoned your response doesn’t expose it’s flaws nor offer reason to not believe it.

 

[Spirithound]

To say that a certain suffering is necessary is to say that it is a remedy for something, or an inoculation against something in the future. Do you know any doctor who fills a syringe with a random amount of a vaccine? No, therefore any remedy or inoculation must be in a certain quantity.

To make your points stick, you need to show that all the agents of lessening suffering are intervening at non-optimal times.

 

[Benadam]

That’s not what the Church means when it teaches all suffering is necessary. It means that is is necessary that all suffering exists. As a consequence of sin suffering necessarily exists. As a condition that initiates growth suffering necessarily exists.

Read this for a better explanation of the word necessity
---->newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm

 

[R_Daneel]

Hi, R Daneel -

Let me respectfully contradict you. Have you ever been blamed for what another did? Well, it happens all the time to God. God did not put all that suffering into the world. We agree that much suffering is unnecessary. All of the things that happen to me or that come my way are about 95% because of the choices I make; about 3% because of the choices other people have made for and about me; and 2% a direct action by God in my life. Imho. And, I submit, the same goes for everybody else.

Consequently, I think if we all made choices to direct us to God, there would be less unnecessary suffering. If and only if this is true, then aetheists and skeptics cause a lot of unnecessary suffering by choosing to go away from God.
Nevertheless, as it is written, “Even the wicked are appointed for the Day of the Lord”. Which is to say, God even uses aetheists and skeptics to accomplish his far reaching will.

The usual defense agaist the problem of evil (aka suffering) is that there is no “unnecessary” suffering, all suffering is permitted by God, because they bring forth some unspecified greater good, which could not be brought forth without the suffering.

Your approach is different. You agree that there is unnecessary suffering. How do you reconcile it with a loving God? Love - the action in the best interest of the loved one - does not permit useless, unnecessary suffering, though it may be compatible with necessary suffering.

 

[R_Daneel]

To say that a certain suffering is necessary is to say that it is a remedy for something, or an inoculation against something in the future. Do you know any doctor who fills a syringe with a random amount of a vaccine? No, therefore any remedy or inoculation must be in a certain quantity.

To make your points stick, you need to show that all the agents of lessening suffering are intervening at non-optimal times.

Obvious. Any and all suffering will be terminated by God, as soon as it outlives its usefulness. This logically follows from God’s love - acting in the best interest of the loved ones. Therefore any and all interference with suffering is prematurely terminating the suffering - and as such attempting to interfere with God’s love.

 

[R_Daneel]

That’s not what the Church means when it teaches all suffering is necessary. It means that is is necessary that all suffering exists. As a consequence of sin suffering necessarily exists. As a condition that initiates growth suffering necessarily exists.

Read this for a better explanation of the word necessity
---->newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm

This contradicts with God’s love. Love always acts in the best interest of the loved one. To allow unnecessary, useless, gratuitous suffering contradicts love.

 

[Benadam]

This contradicts with God’s love. Love always acts in the best interest of the loved one. To allow unnecessary, useless, gratuitous suffering contradicts love.

You didn’t address the concepts expressed in my post. I don’t know how to answer a response so unrelated to what I wrote.

 

[Benadam]

This contradicts with God’s love. Love always acts in the best interest of the loved one. To allow unnecessary, useless, gratuitous suffering contradicts love.

R Daneel,
if we are both discussing the good of a God who is the creator of all that is, we are forced to admit that what is good is sometimes not revealed. That being so, it follows that there is good that we could not know as good, could not recognize as good, not having the knowledge that God has to know how and why it is good. God is Big. We are small. Some things are inherently mysterious to the small that is not a mystery to the big. If we put God to the test, if we make God fit our standards, we have made God small like us.We are no longer discussing God the creator of all that is.

 

[Spirithound]

Obvious. Any and all suffering will be terminated by God, as soon as it outlives its usefulness. This logically follows from God’s love - acting in the best interest of the loved ones. Therefore any and all interference with suffering is prematurely terminating the suffering - and as such attempting to interfere with God’s love.

Show me why termination of suffering must be supernatural. Why couldn’t God use people to carry out his work?

 

[Benadam]

Adam sought a remedy for the loneliness he suffered among the animals. As long as there was an animal unamed Adam continued to suffer. Untill the work committed to Adam was complete Adam was not prepared for life without the loneliness he suffered.

 

[R_Daneel]

Show me why termination of suffering must be supernatural. Why couldn’t God use people to carry out his work?

A fair question. The process of leaving it to fallible humans to stop the suffering at the precise (mathematically precise) point is inherently random and unreliable. Just one simple example: a car with medications to cure some illness is stopped by an unexpected traffic jam. The lateness thus will extend the suffering beyond the “necessary” point.

Remember, the premises are:

1. God loves everyone equally.
2. God’s love means that he acts in the best interest of everyone.
3. God’s love only allows suffering inasmuch as this suffering brings forth some greater good, which cannot be achieved without this suffering (omnipotence notwithstanding).
4. God’s love means that he stops the suffering at the precise point when the suffering reached the point of “necessity”, because allowing further suffering would be “unnecessary”.
5. Since God’s love applies to everyone equally, the suffering must be beneficial for the sufferer. To allow suffering of person “A” so that person “B” will reap the benefits contradicts the concept of equal love.
6. The possible objection that the sufferer will be rewarded for the suffering is unacceptable. If the reward is logically unrelated to the suffering, then the reward cannot retroactively justify the suffering - no matter how great the reward might be.

These are the premises. The conclusion is unavoidable: God’s love ensures that everyone’s suffering is stopped at the precise point when the suffering reached the point of “necessity”, but not fraction of a second later. That process cannot be left to chance. Therefore God must stop all the suffering himself - even if that interference in undetectable by our limited knowledge.

Therefore every attempted human interference can only distort God’s precise actions.

Now, the fact that we still do our best to remedy suffering simply means that we don’t believe that all suffering is necessary. This includes the Catholic Church, which maintains all those hospitals dedicated to alleviate and decrease suffering - thus counteracting God’s work. If the Catholic Church maintains that all suffering is for some greater good (and I am not sure that it does), then its words and actions contradict each other. If, however the Catholic Church would maintain that there is unnecessary suffering (and its attempts to decrease it points in that direction) then it effectively denies God’s love.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[tonyrey]

The process of leaving it to fallible humans to stop the suffering at the precise (mathematically precise) point is inherently random and unreliable. Just one simple example: a car with medications to cure some illness is stopped by an unexpected traffic jam. The lateness thus will extend the suffering beyond the “necessary” point.

In order to stop suffering God would have to intervene on countless occasions thereby interfering with the orderliness of nature and making a rational existence impossible! There has to be a limit to miracles; otherwise it defeats the purpose of establishing an orderly system…

1. Since God’s love applies to everyone equally, the suffering must be beneficial for the sufferer. To allow suffering of person “A” so that person “B” will reap the benefits contradicts the concept of equal love.

It is physically impossible to ensure this. If you disagree the onus is on you to explain how it can be achieved.

1. The possible objection that the sufferer will be rewarded for the suffering is unacceptable. If the reward is logically unrelated to the suffering, then the reward cannot retroactively justify the suffering - no matter how great the reward might be.

If it is** impossible** to prevent the suffering of one person without causing others to suffer then the reward is logically related and it is justified. If you are forced to neglect a child because you have to care for another even the child will understand the value of its reward.

These are the premises. The conclusion is unavoidable: God’s love ensures that everyone’s suffering is stopped at the precise point when the suffering reached the point of “necessity”, but not fraction of a second later. That process cannot be left to chance. Therefore God must stop all the suffering himself - even if that interference in undetectable by our limited knowledge.

Even if the interference is undetectable it will still undermine the normal course of events if it occurs too often.

Therefore every attempted human interference can only distort God’s precise actions.

The fact that we exercise our free will already considerably distorts God’s actions - as we can see from the state of the world and the colossal amount of human suffering.

Now, the fact that we still do our best to remedy suffering simply means that we don’t believe that all suffering is necessary. This includes the Catholic Church, which maintains all those hospitals dedicated to alleviate and decrease suffering - thus counteracting God’s work. If the Catholic Church maintains that all suffering is for some greater good (and I am not sure that it does), then its words and actions contradict each other. If, however the Catholic Church would maintain that there is unnecessary suffering (and its attempts to decrease it points in that direction) then it effectively denies God’s love.

You are overlooking human freedom and the element of chance which produces unnecessary suffering.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Indeed. You cannot have all the pleasures of life and freedom into the bargain for nothing!