Is there needless suffering?

[R_Daneel]

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…

Irrelevant. The point is that God loves everyone equally (Catholic assertion) and therefore God acts in everyone’s best interest (another Catholic assertion). If that is “impossible” then the only inference one can draw that God is unable to love everyone equally. Is that what you want to say?

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

And how would you know that? Are you omnisciennt? God is supposed to be able to create “physically impossible” events (yet another Catholic assertion).

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.

It is not in the best interest of the sufferer. And if God allows that then his equal love (still another Catholic assertion) is in jeopardy.

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.

If any of those colossal sufferings is not necessary for the best interest of the sufferer, then God allows unnecessary suffering, which contradicts God’s alleged love.

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

Freedom is not in the best interest of anyone. The best solution must involve that everyone will enjoy the ultimate benefit of enjoying God’s perfect love. If God does not ensure that, that God’s love is meaningless.

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

The so-called pleasures of **this **life must take second place compared to the eternal bliss stemming from God’s perfect love. (just another Catholic assertion). Why do you fight so vehemently against what Catholics say about the subject? You should realize that I only use Catholic arguments - and they are inconsistent. To recap: Catholics say that there is no unnecessary suffering, and act as if most suffering were unnecessary. Which is hypocrisy.

 

[donsnow]

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.

I would say I pointed out that God allows necessary and unnecessary suffering when I mentioned people bring a great percentage of what happens to them upon themselves by the choices they make. God gave us free will, the freedom of choice; and I think He permits us the consequences of those choices when He gave us freedom of choice, to teach us about making and not making choices.
This is a comment that although all suffering is permitted by God, not all suffering is of God.
It also addresses why some people have more than they can bear when scripture says He will give us no more than we can bear. We call down more than we can bear upon us, beyond what God may have given us to strengthen our faith, or hope or love…by some of our choices, imho.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

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…
Irrelevant. The point is that God loves everyone equally (Catholic assertion) and therefore God acts in everyone’s best interest (another Catholic assertion). If that is “impossible” then the only inference one can draw that God is unable to love everyone equally. Is that what you want to say?God does not love everyone equally because we make it impossible for Him to love everyone equally. He has given us free will and the power to choose evil - even to the extent of rejecting Him.

tonyrey

             It is physically impossible to ensure this. If you disagree the onus is on you to explain how it can be achieved.And how would you **know** that? Because it is impossible for everyone to be given precisely the same opportunities and the same experiences - unless we are all  zombies.

Are you omniscient?

A futile question.

God is supposed to be able to create “physically impossible” events (yet another Catholic assertion).

God suspends the laws of nature on certain occasions.

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.It is not in the best interest of the sufferer.How do you assess the best interest of the sufferer?

And if God allows that then his equal love (still another Catholic assertion) is in jeopardy.

You have a fixation about equal love!

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.

If any of those colossal sufferings is not necessary for the best interest of the sufferer, then God allows unnecessary suffering, which contradicts God’s alleged love. Please explain what you mean by the best interest of the sufferer. What are your criteria?

You are overlooking human freedom and the element of chance which produces unnecessary suffering.
Freedom is not in the best interest of anyone.

So you think we should be robots?

The best solution must involve that everyone will enjoy the ultimate benefit of enjoying God’s perfect love. If God does not ensure that, that God’s love is meaningless.

You mean you expect God to force everyone to love Him? Do you think that is the only way a person can enjoy His perfect love?

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

The so-called pleasures of **this **life must take second place compared to the eternal bliss stemming from God’s perfect love. (just another Catholic assertion).
Why do you fight so vehemently against what Catholics say about the subject? You should realize that I only use Catholic arguments - and they are inconsistent. Your interpretation of them is inconsistent.
quote]To recap: Catholics say that there is no unnecessary suffering, and act as if most suffering were unnecessary. Which is hypocrisy.

It is inevitable that there is suffering in a extremely complex physical system where people have free will. How could it be accident-free, disaster-free and disease-free?

“Catholics say that there is no unnecessary suffering, and act as if most suffering were unnecessary.”
I think you have slipped up here!

 

[R_Daneel]

I would say I pointed out that God allows necessary and unnecessary suffering when I mentioned people bring a great percentage of what happens to them upon themselves by the choices they make. God gave us free will, the freedom of choice; and I think He permits us the consequences of those choices when He gave us freedom of choice, to teach us about making and not making choices.
This is a comment that although all suffering is permitted by God, not all suffering is of God.
It also addresses why some people have more than they can bear when scripture says He will give us no more than we can bear. We call down more than we can bear upon us, beyond what God may have given us to strengthen our faith, or hope or love…by some of our choices, imho.

Nonsense. If you love someone, and you know better, then you **prevent **the loved one from making fatal decisions. That is what love means - acting in the best interest of the loved one - disregarding their possible freedom to act. If you are a parent, and see that your child is about to make a fatal choice, you step right in, and prevent him - **if **you love him. Freedom is not absolute, and never was.

 

[R_Daneel]

God does not love everyone equally because we make it impossible for Him to love everyone equally. He has given us free will and the power to choose evil - even to the extent of rejecting Him.

Hah! God is supposed to love everyone equally - he is supposed to love even the worst sinner. That is the universal assumption of all Catholics (and Christians in general). Our presumed rejection has nothing to do with it.

Because it is impossible for everyone to be given precisely the same opportunities and the same experiences - unless we are all zombies.

What is wrong with “zombies”?

How do you assess the best interest of the sufferer?

Still the same as I said above: “to be with God in perfect eternal happiness”. Don’t waste my time by asking the same question again and again.

You have a fixation about equal love!

Not I, Catholics. I am merely quoting Catholic assumptions.

So you think we should be robots?

What is wrong with robots?

You mean you expect God to force everyone to love Him? Do you think that is the only way a person can enjoy His perfect love?

Nonsense. We don’t have to “love” God, in order to enjoy his perfect love. By the way, we cannot love God in the same sense as God loves us. We are unable to act in the best interest of God, since God lacks nothing, God has no needs which we could fulfill.

It is inevitable that there is suffering in a extremely complex physical system where people have free will. How could it be accident-free, disaster-free and disease-free?

Mere technicality - a child’s play for an omnipotent being.

“Catholics say that there is no unnecessary suffering, and act as if most suffering were unnecessary.”

I don’t think so. There are three “defenses” when it comes to the problem of suffering:

1. All sufferings bring forth some greater good, which is so desirable that the benefits will outweigh the discomfort of suffering. (Suffering is a **logical prerequisite **to God’s goals, even if we do not understand the why’s and wherefore’s) In other words, there is no needless suffering.
2. Some sufferings are the result of free human actions. (Suffering is a** logical consequence** of our abused or misused free will).
3. The denial that suffering is “bad”. This is the worst kind of argument - hypocritical to the bone. Those who say this do not suffer themselves, they are just “brave” enough to “heroically endure” other people’s suffering.

In this thread I am dealing with the first “defense”. So far I have not seen any worthy rebuttal to my reasoning: “The acts of the Catholic Church clearly indicate that the Catholic Church believes that some sufferings are not necessary”.

 

[tonyrey]

What is wrong with “zombies”?
What is wrong with robots?
Don’t waste my time by asking the same question again and again.

It’s a waste of time trying to have a discussion who asks questions like these…

 

[tonyrey]

What is wrong with “zombies”?
What is wrong with robots?
Don’t waste my time by asking the same question again and again.

It’s a waste of time trying to have a discussion with some one who asks questions like these…

 

[TiggerS]

1. All sufferings bring forth some greater good, which is so desirable that the benefits will outweigh the discomfort of suffering. (Suffering is a **logical prerequisite **to God’s goals, even if we do not understand the why’s and wherefore’s) In other words, there is no needless suffering.
2. Some sufferings are the result of free human actions. (Suffering is a** logical consequence** of our abused or misused free will).
3. The denial that suffering is “bad”. This is the worst kind of argument - hypocritical to the bone. Those who say this do not suffer themselves, they are just “brave” enough to “heroically endure” other people’s suffering.

In this thread I am dealing with the first “defense”. So far I have not seen any worthy rebuttal to my reasoning: “The acts of the Catholic Church clearly indicate that the Catholic Church believes that some sufferings are not necessary”.

“Worthy rebuttal” may well be your value judgement only and completely personal in discernment.

We do not live in a perfect world manifest, although we do strive in hope and with absolute trust towards one which mysteriously and mystically is yet here and perfect. In this imperfect world as manifest to our senses suffering exists and we believe that out of the suffering in this imperfect world God permits it and draws good sometimes very mysteriously and unidentified by us - but we believe nontheless. We also believe that suffering can be made holy and redemptive through unity with the sufferings of Jesus. We are called however to strive towards a perfect world and God’s Kingdom manifest in which suffering does not exist, hence we do strive to alleviate it. Hence suffering is a face of the imperfect world manifest in which we are living and is needless and yet at once needful since the world is imperfect as manifest to our senses.

TS

 

[Spirithound]

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.

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.

To call the process of using fallible humans (I did not say leaving it to them) inherently unreliable is to display a lack of faith in God. Perhaps the traffic jam extends the suffering to to “necessary” point.

One more thing that just occurred to me: medical attention generally doesn’t stop suffering. Has anybody gotten up from open-heart surgery and danced down the hallway? So the actual end of suffering does seem to still be in God’s hands.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

You can have the cake, I’ll eat it.

 

[R_Daneel]

We do not live in a perfect world manifest, although we do strive in hope and with absolute trust towards one which mysteriously and mystically is yet here and perfect. In this imperfect world as manifest to our senses suffering exists and we believe that out of the suffering in this imperfect world God permits it and draws good sometimes very mysteriously and unidentified by us - but we believe nontheless.

I highlighted the word “sometimes” above. What about the rest of the times? The trouble is that God’s supposed love totally and completely negates any and all needless sufffering. A being, who allows gratuitous suffering cannot be called “good” and “loving”.

We also believe that suffering can be made holy and redemptive through unity with the sufferings of Jesus.

In which instances? By whom? And of course, what about the rest?

We are called however to strive towards a perfect world and God’s Kingdom manifest in which suffering does not exist, hence we do strive to alleviate it. Hence suffering is a face of the imperfect world manifest in which we are living and is needless and yet at once needful since the world is imperfect as manifest to our senses.

That is highly commendanble and I share your sentiment that we should attempt to alleviate suffering. But that still does not answer the dilemma I proposed. If all suffering is necessary, then attempting to fix them runs the risk of disrupting the means to bring forth that mysterious greater good. If only some of the sufferings have that special property, then allowing the other, unnecessary sufferings denies God’s “loving nature”.

 

[R_Daneel]

To call the process of using fallible humans (I did not say leaving it to them) inherently unreliable is to display a lack of faith in God. Perhaps the traffic jam extends the suffering to to “necessary” point.

Possible. But do you really think that God relies on millions and billions of lucky coincidences to stop the suffering in time? The probability of that is infinitesimally small.

One more thing that just occurred to me: medical attention generally doesn’t stop suffering. Has anybody gotten up from open-heart surgery and danced down the hallway? So the actual end of suffering does seem to still be in God’s hands.

Medical intervention was just an example. I could have used more gruesome examples, like a drunken father beating his small child. If that person would fall down in drunken stupor halfway through the beating, would you assume that he delivered just the right amount of suffering and not a bit more?

 

[R_Daneel]

It’s a waste of time trying to have a discussion with some one who asks questions like these…

No one is forcing you. Have a nice day.

 

[Spirithound]

Possible. But do you really think that God relies on millions and billions of lucky coincidences to stop the suffering in time? The probability of that is infinitesimally small.

Medical intervention was just an example. I could have used more gruesome examples, like a drunken father beating his small child. If that person would fall down in drunken stupor halfway through the beating, would you assume that he delivered just the right amount of suffering and not a bit more?

Apparently my faith in God is stronger than yours.

 

[R_Daneel]

Apparently my faith in God is stronger than yours.

That is a given, since I do not even believe that God exists.

Which does not exclude the assumption that I am wrong. However, the idea that all the apparently needless sufferings are all “planned” by God, and in reality they just fulfill their role, and God simply relies on random chance to stop all the sufferings at the precise moment - that is unbelievable. However, even if that were the case, that does not answer the problem: any and all attempts to lessen and alleviate the sufferings try to interfere with the sufferings. Which tells me that the Catholic Church’s actions contradict the assumption that all sufferings are necessary.

 

[Spirithound]

That is a given, since I do not even believe that God exists.

Which does not exclude the assumption that I am wrong. However, the idea that all the apparently needless sufferings are all “planned” by God, and in reality they just fulfill their role, and God simply relies on random chance to stop all the sufferings at the precise moment - that is unbelievable. However, even if that were the case, that does not answer the problem: any and all attempts to lessen and alleviate the sufferings try to interfere with the sufferings. Which tells me that the Catholic Church’s actions contradict the assumption that all sufferings are necessary.

Not random chance; Divine Providence.

When a Catholic gives medical care mindful of God’s will, they likely see themself as a tool of God. Meaning they have faith also that God will allow it till the precise time that the necessity is filled.

 

[donsnow]

Nonsense. If you love someone, and you know better, then you **prevent **the loved one from making fatal decisions. That is what love means - acting in the best interest of the loved one - disregarding their possible freedom to act. If you are a parent, and see that your child is about to make a fatal choice, you step right in, and prevent him - **if **you love him. Freedom is not absolute, and never was.

Yes, God the Good Father knows what’s best. And, He’s about the only One who knows what’s better for this grown man typing these words.
God has children, for whom He intervenes. He also may intervene for those not His children, but whom His children plead for Him to intervene.
And, since God is love, He intervenes for those who love Him, whether they’re His children or not.
I hesitate to say He doesn’t intervene for some people who reject Him and I’m sure He usually doesn’t intervene for those who hate or reject Him. And, this is where you and I may differ. If so, I’d like to agree to disagree, here.

 

[TiggerS]

Originally Posted by TiggerS http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
We do not live in a perfect world manifest, although we do strive in hope and with absolute trust towards one which mysteriously and mystically is yet here and perfect. In this imperfect world as manifest to our senses suffering exists and we believe that out of the suffering in this imperfect world God permits it and draws good sometimes very mysteriously and unidentified by us - but we believe nontheless.

I highlighted the word “sometimes” above. What about the rest of the times? The trouble is that God’s supposed love totally and completely negates any and all needless sufffering. A being, who allows gratuitous suffering cannot be called “good” and “loving”.

It was St Peter who stated that Jesus, His Cross and Resurrection and all that has flowed from it, including The Catholic Church would be “counfounding” and “rejected” - “and a stone of stumbling and a rock of scandal to those who stumble at the Word”. We experience God as loving, all embracing and merciful - all that is good and perfect - despite that we also live in this world arm in arm with human suffering often and that often mysteriously to us God is drawing good out of suffering. To you, I think possibly and with absolute respect, this experience can only be counfounding and rejected and a stumbling stone and scandalous because you have no experience of God as we do. It is very sad to us and we suffer because of it and yet to us mysteriously out of it God is drawing good. That may well be the dividing line between us and perhaps we will have our point of view and experience and you yours, and never the twain shall meet. We live in different ‘worlds’ experiencing this same world of our common abode differently.
"First Peter Chapter 2 6 Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him, shall not be confounded. 7 To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner: 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of scandal, to them who stumble at the word, neither do believe, whereunto also they are set. 9 But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Who in time past were not a people: but are now the people of God. Who had not obtained mercy; but now have obtained mercy. "

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiggerS http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
We also believe that suffering can be made holy and redemptive through unity with the sufferings of Jesus.

In which instances? By whom? And of course, what about the rest?

Again, I need refer you to the above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiggerS http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
We are called however to strive towards a perfect world and God’s Kingdom manifest in which suffering does not exist, hence we do strive to alleviate it. Hence suffering is a face of the imperfect world manifest in which we are living and is needless and yet at once needful since the world is imperfect as manifest to our senses.

That is highly commendanble and I share your sentiment that we should attempt to alleviate suffering. But that still does not answer the dilemma I proposed. If all suffering is necessary, then attempting to fix them runs the risk of disrupting the means to bring forth that mysterious greater good. If only some of the sufferings have that special property, then allowing the other, unnecessary sufferings denies God’s “loving nature”.

As I said, to my way of thinking suffering is at once, at one and the same time to me both necessary and yet unnecessary if you read my full post #47 here : forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5994346&postcount=47

It is absolutely impossible to frustrate the Loving Designs of God and it can be a certain arrogance and a certain pride to think that one/someone(s) could or can so frustrate His Designs. This may be irrational to reason if one is coming from reason. It is not irrational to a reason enlightened by Faith. And as I said, this may well be the dividing line between us - that we are coming from reason enlightened by Faith and you are coming from human reasoning alone. This former may be a stumbling block and a stone of stumbling to a person of human reasoning alone - so be it.

 

[R_Daneel]

Not random chance; Divine Providence.

When a Catholic gives medical care mindful of God’s will, they likely see themself as a tool of God. Meaning they have faith also that God will allow it till the precise time that the necessity is filled.

“Divine providence” is just a different phrase for constant “mini-miracles” - which is not contradicted bt the Church’s teachings.

 

[R_Daneel]

Yes, God the Good Father knows what’s best. And, He’s about the only One who knows what’s better for this grown man typing these words.
God has children, for whom He intervenes. He also may intervene for those not His children, but whom His children plead for Him to intervene.
And, since God is love, He intervenes for those who love Him, whether they’re His children or not.
I hesitate to say He doesn’t intervene for some people who reject Him and I’m sure He usually doesn’t intervene for those who hate or reject Him. And, this is where you and I may differ.

I don’t know about anyone, who would consciously and actively “reject” God. The lack of belief of atheists is not to be confused by active rejection of God, at most it would be a rejection of the concept of God. But that would belong to a different thread.

If so, I’d like to agree to disagree, here.

Certainly. Thank you for your observations.

 

[R_Daneel]

We experience God as loving, all embracing and merciful - all that is good and perfect - despite that we also live in this world arm in arm with human suffering often and that often mysteriously to us God is drawing good out of suffering. To you, I think possibly and with absolute respect, this experience can only be counfounding and rejected and a stumbling stone and scandalous because you have no experience of God as we do.

There is noting I can reply to words like these. I do not take them as offensive, of course, but they are totally unacceptable. Any possible answer on my part could be taken as offensive, so I will just not say them.