Is there needless suffering?

[donsnow]

Good morning, Teru Wong -

OUR God made you in *his *images. The Earth is billion years old. On the contrary, our history lasts for approximately 4,000 years only.

Different people have different ages for our Earth and our respective histories. Frankly, I think China has been around as a civilization about 4,000 years. Is that what you meant?

Light is the initial. Birth is her power. Lives are proofs. She is a supreme being without violating the natural rules. (Note that it is neither deism nor a new religion.) Lives are proofs because of the physical existence of the God as a Conscious Earth*. The power of the God comes from birth. Her power is giving us birth. Her love is rearing us until death.*
**

OK, here’s where our belief systems differ. I respect you choice of what to believe. However, I’d like to point out, that the Creator created all the galaxies, stars, planets, moons, comets, asteroids, metoroids, animal and plant life and seas, mountains…everything; all of these are His creatures, including, the way I see it, the Earth. Both science and Christianity agree that in time, the heavens and the Earth will pass away. Christianity teaches that the Creator and His kingdom will survive the demise of the present heavens and Earth, and that there will be a new heavens and a new earth.

I do believe that physical evidence reveals the Creator and the light is good. Our lives are proofs of our Creator. I believe His power is in His Holy Spirit.

Our civilizations dress us with clothes. Our manner made us a respectable man.
Our indivisibility with the God made us a unity on the Earth.

Globalization is the final stage of evolutions. (Note that this line is my individual opinions. It is not cohesive with my scientific hypothesis, “Lives in different levels”.)

I think that our views are comparable, here. We believe that God put us here to, among other things, tend the Earth and all on and in it. We are united in that way, to the Earth.

Belief systems have been established. Meanwhile, truth is always ONE.
The God exists in reality.

Complexity in our world. Diversifications of religions.

Yes, although of different religions, civilizations and philosophies, I think you and I can agree about what you’ve just written. Interesting, from different perspectives we can still each see the same generalities.

My main point is, “Physical presences always take the lead.”
Lives are lives in different levels.]/QUOTE]

I can agree, that in appearance, physical presence takes the lead. I think what you write is part of a Materialist perspective, am I correct?

However, since I believe that God’s spirit (which is intangible and immaterial) was the power that the Holy Trinity exercised to effect creation, I would then, on the Christian side of it, say that the Spirit came before the physical. Of course, rather than point fingers at each other, we can agree to disagree and each of us stay with respective belief systems.

I definitely agree that there are different levels in each life.
kk23wong;6022004:

Teru Wong

Thank you, for sharing your thoughts about these points, with me. I hope I have not offended you by sharing our Christian thoughts about these points, with you.

 

[R_Daneel]

In order to be a saint, one must possess sufficient freedom to also be a sinner. Otherwise, we’re just robots.

What is wrong with robots? No one can answer that simple question.

And again, Catholics do not believe death to be fatal only transitory. Our soul is immortal and its “health” is beyond any contingency in time save the abuse of our own free will. It’s all logical to me.

I am not talking just about death here. Of course for atheists that would be the “end”, but I understand that Catholics believe in heaven and hell. The fatal consequence for Catholics would be to “miss” the train to heaven. And a loving God would act in the best interest on the person involved, and if the best interest is to get to heaven (which is obvious), it is the proper and logical action on God’s part to prevent the person to commit the act that would prevent them to get into heaven - and the free will of the person be damned! That is what I illustrated with my example of a loving parent - who does not give the freedom to his child to commit a fatal act - whatever that “fatal” act might be.

Freedom to commmit fatally wrong actions is not a desirable degree of freedom - and preventing that kind of freedom is what a really loving God should do - to deserve the title of “loving”.

 

[o_mlly]

What is wrong with robots? No one can answer that simple question.

What does that have to do with the thread? I don’t think robots suffer. (Nor do I think they experience joy.)

I am not talking just about death here. Of course for atheists that would be the “end”, but I understand that Catholics believe in heaven and hell. The fatal consequence for Catholics would be to “miss” the train to heaven. And a loving God would act in the best interest on the person involved, and if the best interest is to get to heaven (which is obvious), it is the proper and logical action on God’s part to prevent the person to commit the act that would prevent them to get into heaven - and the free will of the person be damned! That is what I illustrated with my example of a loving parent - who does not give the freedom to his child to commit a fatal act - whatever that “fatal” act might be.

Freedom to commmit fatally wrong actions is not a desirable degree of freedom - and preventing that kind of freedom is what a really loving God should do - to deserve the title of “loving”.

One does not “‘miss’ the train to heaven.” They decide not to board. They reject God’s offer of friendship. God wants to be sought and, in the economy of our salvation, He is always the protagonist and does most of the work.

Freedom of the will is a not a continuum but rather a discrete condition. To speak of “degrees of freedom” doesn’t make sense to me. You either are free to choose or you are not – it’s like a light switch not a thermometer.

God does not gift and then rescind. Although some try, one cannot escape from freedom: it is the human condition.

 

[R_Daneel]

What does that have to do with the thread? I don’t think robots suffer. (Nor do I think they experience joy.)

You brought it up, not I. Besides, suffering and joy has nothing to with love - in an by themselves. Love is an action on behalf of the loved one, and that can be performed perfectly by a “robot”.

One does not “‘miss’ the train to heaven.” They decide not to board. They reject God’s offer of friendship. God wants to be sought and, in the economy of our salvation, He is always the protagonist and does most of the work.

Nonsense. No one ever rejects God. Christian believers would never do so, and all the others simply do not believe in the Christian God. That does not equate rejection.

The point is that in their ignorance some humans act contrary to God’s requirements (commands!) and thus they do not get admittance to heaven. That is the result of exercising their free will incorrectly. If God loved them, then he should have intervened and prevented them from making such fatal decisions. Moreover he should have made his requirements explicit, abundantly clearly available to everyone, so he did not have to intervene at all, or much less frquently.

Freedom of the will is a not a continuum but rather a discrete condition. To speak of “degrees of freedom” doesn’t make sense to me. You either are free to choose or you are not – it’s like a light switch not a thermometer.

Free will is not absolute. It also depends on the physical and emotional circumstances. There are many things that we can “will” but unable to act on our will.

For example, if one would take the Genesis literally, then the original dilemma should never have been presented. That omninous tree-of-knowledge would not even been available. That is akin to a good parent hiding rat-poison from his child, not leave it out in plain sight and “forbid” the child to touch it.

God does not gift and then rescind. Although some try, one cannot escape from freedom: it is the human condition.

If free will can lead to fatal consequences then it is an unnecessary gift. Or at least there is too much freedom. No one asked for free will. No one needs free will. No smart constructor would ever give free will to his creation, if he wants his creation to perform in a certain way. Only if he does not care what his creation will do does he give free will - but then he is not loving. Or if he is curious how the created beings will behave - but then he is not omniscient.

Love for the creation and giving mostly unrestricted free will to the creation are mutually contradictory.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You brought it up, not I. Besides, suffering and joy has nothing to with love - in an by themselves. Love is an action on behalf of the loved one, and that can be performed perfectly by a “robot”.

So you’re saying that bees love each other, since they assist one another? Not so. Action on the behalf of the loved one may be necessary for love, but it is not sufficient. If a person is forced to “love”, and has no other option, then it is not love. If everything was made of gold, would someone deserve admiration for giving gold as a gift? No, rather, we would not have a word for “gold” and we would not have any idea of what “gold” was. Definition requires difference. Robots could not know what love is.

Nonsense. No one ever rejects God. Christian believers would never do so, and all the others simply do not believe in the Christian God.

I rejected God for a number of years, by handing myself over to sin and ignoring my moral obligations. Being a “Christian believer” doesn’t make a person magically obedient.

Love for the creation and giving mostly unrestricted free will to the creation are mutually contradictory.

“Mostly unrestricted”? Can we destroy planets with the power of our minds? That would be mostly unrestricted. As it is, our free will has a great many restrictions, the most important of which is this: we cannot possibly cause another person to sin.

As to your overall claim, your conclusion that God is not loving is quite logical, given your premises. But I think your definition of love is flawed. Can you truly love a healthy and intelligent adult by restricting his/her access to anything harmful?

(My suggestion: vulnerability is a necessary condition to love. You may care for a person without being vulnerable to them, but you do not *love *them).

 

[kk23wong]

Different people have different ages for our Earth and our respective histories. Frankly, I think China has been around as a civilization about 4,000 years. Is that what you meant?

Estimation was made on geometric waves. This method is unreliable.
Rigidity in science takes time.

OK, here’s where our belief systems differ. I respect you choice of what to believe. However, I’d like to point out, that the Creator created all the galaxies, stars, planets, moons, comets, asteroids, metoroids, animal and plant life and seas, mountains…everything; all of these are His creatures, including, the way I see it, the Earth. Both science and Christianity agree that in time, the heavens and the Earth will pass away. Christianity teaches that the Creator and His kingdom will survive the demise of the present heavens and Earth, and that there will be a new heavens and a new earth.

Nobody can challenge your faith unless it is moving from your heart. Mutual respects in religious beliefs create a world of harmony.

I do believe that physical evidence reveals the Creator and the light is good. Our lives are proofs of our Creator. I believe His power is in His Holy Spirit.

When Light is on, Dark off.
When Dark off, Light is on.
Both Light and Dark come from birth.
They are one, but different.

Both of them have some symbolic meanings in history. Light represented the good side. Dark represented evil side. An Evil is ones’ enemy. A conflict in heart (of the God) resulted in a war in history. Light and Dark in our heart. Both comes from birth.

I think that our views are comparable, here. We believe that God put us here to, among other things, tend the Earth and all on and in it. We are united in that way, to the Earth.

The God give us a place of rest. By rearing us until death, her NATURE must be charity and love.

Yes, although of different religions, civilizations and philosophies, I think you and I can agree about what you’ve just written. Interesting, from different perspectives we can still each see the same generalities.

Peace.

I can agree, that in appearance, physical presence takes the lead. I think what you write is part of a Materialist perspective, am I correct?

Spiritually speaking, you’re always free. Free will is granted by the God.
Destiny from the God. Fates are in our hands.

I definitely agree that there are different levels in each life.

Levels of lives laid on our physical presences, not living standard or morality.

I hope I have not offended you by sharing our Christian thoughts about these points, with you.

Surely not, thanks for your sharing.

Teru Wong

 

[R_Daneel]

So you’re saying that bees love each other, since they assist one another? Not so. Action on the behalf of the loved one may be necessary for love, but it is not sufficient.

I am using the definition of love as it is being used by Christians. My definition would be different: “love is an emotion, which should be expressed in actions to be meaningful”. If you disagree that love is action on behalf of someone else’s interest (and maybe even acting against one’s own interest - sacrificial love) then it is quite ok by me. But in that case you don’t argue on Catholic grounds.

Think about doctors. They take the Hyppocratic oath, so they give up their “free will” whether they want to help their patients or not - they are obligated by their oath to help them. Who cares if they have an emotion toward their patients? Would any positive or negative emotion be relevant at all? Of course it would not.

If a person is forced to “love”, and has no other option, then it is not love.

Who cares? Actions matter, the underlying emotion does not. Even if one views love only as an emotion, it does not matter how that emotion came into existence.

Robots could not know what love is.

How do you know that? In any way they would know how to act in a helpful manner. They would even sacrifice themselves for human beings - if constructed according to Asimov’s three laws of robotics. And self-sacrifice is considered the highest form of love, is it not?

I rejected God for a number of years, by handing myself over to sin and ignoring my moral obligations. Being a “Christian believer” doesn’t make a person magically obedient.

Perhaps. But an atheist cannot reject God - though he can reject the idea or the concept of God. That was my point.

“Mostly unrestricted”? Can we destroy planets with the power of our minds? That would be mostly unrestricted. As it is, our free will has a great many restrictions, the most important of which is this: we cannot possibly cause another person to sin.

That is agreeable. Indeed we have all sorts of restrictions on exercising our free will. My point is that we still have too much freedom to cause harm.

As to your overall claim, your conclusion that God is not loving is quite logical, given your premises. But I think your definition of love is flawed. Can you truly love a healthy and intelligent adult by restricting his/her access to anything harmful?

Yes, I sure do. If you wish to give a “proper” definition of love, I am all ears.

(My suggestion: vulnerability is a necessary condition to love. You may care for a person without being vulnerable to them, but you do not *love *them).

I have no idea what you mean. Can you love a newborn? Please elaborate what you mean by “love”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Who cares? Actions matter, the underlying emotion does not. Even if one views love only as an emotion, it does not matter how that emotion came into existence.

Without free will, love is a description of a physical relation. Saying “I love my wife” would be like saying “the bowling ball is round”. The concept of love as a spiritual relationship entails free will. Love is an action, but it is not only an action.

How do you know that? In any way they would know how to act in a helpful manner. They would even sacrifice themselves for human beings - if constructed according to Asimov’s three laws of robotics. And self-sacrifice is considered the highest form of love, is it not?

Self-sacrifice entails free will. Without free will, self-sacrifice is equivalent to “sacrificing” an object.

Yes, I sure do. If you wish to give a “proper” definition of love, I am all ears.

I have no idea what you mean. Can you love a newborn? Please elaborate what you mean by “love”.

Necessary conditions for love:

• The capacity to be hurt by the beloved. (This applied to parents of newborns, because the newborn’s death would cause great pain. By loving, the parents are making themselves vulnerable).
• Willingness to act for the good of the beloved
• Insofar as it is possible, actual action for the good of the beloved.
• Free will.

There may be more necessary conditions for love. But the above definition does correspond to the Catholic understanding of love. Love is action, but it is not simply action.

 

[o_mlly]

You brought it up, not I. Besides, suffering and joy has nothing to with love - in an by themselves. Love is an action on behalf of the loved one, and that can be performed perfectly by a “robot”.

Nonsense. No one ever rejects God. Christian believers would never do so, and all the others simply do not believe in the Christian God. That does not equate rejection.

The point is that in their ignorance some humans act contrary to God’s requirements (commands!) and thus they do not get admittance to heaven. That is the result of exercising their free will incorrectly. If God loved them, then he should have intervened and prevented them from making such fatal decisions. Moreover he should have made his requirements explicit, abundantly clearly available to everyone, so he did not have to intervene at all, or much less frquently.

Free will is not absolute. It also depends on the physical and emotional circumstances. There are many things that we can “will” but unable to act on our will.

For example, if one would take the Genesis literally, then the original dilemma should never have been presented. That omninous tree-of-knowledge would not even been available. That is akin to a good parent hiding rat-poison from his child, not leave it out in plain sight and “forbid” the child to touch it.

If free will can lead to fatal consequences then it is an unnecessary gift. Or at least there is too much freedom. No one asked for free will. No one needs free will. No smart constructor would ever give free will to his creation, if he wants his creation to perform in a certain way. Only if he does not care what his creation will do does he give free will - but then he is not loving. Or if he is curious how the created beings will behave - but then he is not omniscient.

Love for the creation and giving mostly unrestricted free will to the creation are mutually contradictory.

OK, OK, OK … reading your posts is beginning to cause me “needless suffering.”

I’ll pass the baton as I think your posts demonstrate an invincible ignorance regarding Catholic beliefs.

 

[donsnow]

Yes, I sure do. If you wish to give a “proper” definition of love, I am all ears.

Hello, again, R Daneel -

Been awhile. Follows the Christian “proper” definition of love, as rendered by St. Paul in I Corinthians 13, 4 - 8: (NAB) “4. Love is patient; love is kind. Love is not jealous, it does not put on airs, it is not snobbish. 5. Love is never rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not prone to anger; neither does it brood over injuries. 6. Love does not rejoice in what is wrong but rejoices with the truth. 7. There is no limit to love’s forbearance, to its trust, its hope, its power to endure. 8. Love never fails…”

 

[R_Daneel]

Without free will, love is a description of a physical relation. Saying “I love my wife” would be like saying “the bowling ball is round”. The concept of love as a spiritual relationship entails free will. Love is an action, but it is not only an action.

What else? Love is an emotion. It reflects a certain mind-state. Since for atheists the phrase “spiritual” relationship is meaningless, does that mean that atheists are incapable of love?

Self-sacrifice entails free will. Without free will, self-sacrifice is equivalent to “sacrificing” an object.

Why is that relevant? If a human is in danger, and a robot sacrifices “itself” to save that human, why do you deny that it is a meaningful self-sacrifice?

Necessary conditions for love:

• The capacity to be hurt by the beloved. (This applied to parents of newborns, because the newborn’s death would cause great pain. By loving, the parents are making themselves vulnerable).
• Willingness to act for the good of the beloved
• Insofar as it is possible, actual action for the good of the beloved.
• Free will.

There may be more necessary conditions for love. But the above definition does correspond to the Catholic understanding of love. Love is action, but it is not simply action.

Why is “free will” a necessary condition? It has nothing to do with the others. You still did not give any reason why free will should be included as a prerequisite. An action on behalf of the “loved” one is meaningful, no matter how that action is initiated. Moreover, your first condition is rendered doubtful in many circumstances. If a soldier throws himself on a bomb, this action is a self-sacrifice, but that soldier might not feel any “special” pain if his comrades would perish in the blast. Yet this act is called “love” by Catholics.

 

[R_Daneel]

OK, OK, OK … reading your posts is beginning to cause me “needless suffering.”

I’ll pass the baton as I think your posts demonstrate an invincible ignorance regarding Catholic beliefs.

Cute! Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut…

 

[R_Daneel]

Hello, again, R Daneel -

Been awhile. Follows the Christian “proper” definition of love, as rendered by St. Paul in I Corinthians 13, 4 - 8: (NAB) “4. Love is patient; love is kind. Love is not jealous, it does not put on airs, it is not snobbish. 5. Love is never rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not prone to anger; neither does it brood over injuries. 6. Love does not rejoice in what is wrong but rejoices with the truth. 7. There is no limit to love’s forbearance, to its trust, its hope, its power to endure. 8. Love never fails…”

You described certain **attributes **of “love”, but that still does not tell me just what love is supposed to mean…

 

[donsnow]

Good afternoon, Teru Wong -

Estimation was made on geometric waves. This method is unreliable.
Rigidity in science takes time.

Yeah, , both Church and science can be rigid.

Nobody can challenge your faith unless it is moving from your heart. Mutual respects in religious beliefs create a world of harmony.

Peace

When Light is on, Dark off.
When Dark off, Light is on.
Both Light and Dark come from birth.
They are one, but different.

That’s a plain philosophy. Mine includes an evil angel appearing as an angel of light.

Both of them have some symbolic meanings in history. Light represented the good side. Dark represented evil side. An Evil is ones’ enemy. A conflict in heart (of the God) resulted in a war in history. Light and Dark in our heart. Both comes from birth.

Again, from our different perspectives, we see similar things in history. I think Catholic religion says conflict in heart of people cause war.

The God give us a place of rest. By rearing us until death, her NATURE must be charity and love.

Does Earth Mother have to do with Ying and Yang?

Peace.

Spiritually speaking, you’re always free. Free will is granted by the God.
Destiny from the God. Fates are in our hands.

Again, similar information from two different perspectives.

FONT=新]Levels of lives laid on our physical presences, not living standard or morality.

I agree about physical levels and not levels of morality. I almost thought we differ on living standard, but maybe you mean that differently than I see it from American view. Is living standard what kinds of clothes or foods or whether or not have automobile and what kind of automobile? Is that what you mean by living standards? Because we have different levels of those in America.

Surely not, thanks for your sharing.

I appreciate your sharing your beliefs with me, too.

Teru Wong

 

[donsnow]

You described certain **attributes **of “love”, but that still does not tell me just what love is supposed to mean…

Ummmm. Let’s go back to the robot undergoing termination to save a human. Why did it do that? Because it was programmed, that was its built-in nature. That is not love, it had no free choice.

It is not human nature to risk death for another. That comes of love, whether of God or of our nation or of the one being saved. Loving one of those, prompts many ascending types of sacrifices.

What is love?
It can be a choice, an action, a feeling, a thought or restraint of any of those; or any combination of any ot those. It can include sex, but sex isn’t necessarily love. We can love by restraining hasty words from our mouths and simultaneously love the same person by gently touching their face or shoulder as we bite our tongue, for example.
We can also simultaneously cry and smile, and both those actions be love.
Let’s take laughter, which can be good medicine or a menacing warning, depending on circumstances and the personality of the person laughing.

There are so many factors which go into love: the mind, the spirit, the emotions and the body. All those factors may also explain why we get ‘mixed feelings’.

I can’t easily answer your question, R Daneel, but I can tell you one thing more. It’s because of love that we sometimes are willing to suffer, to help or save a loved one. This is the necessary suffering.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What else? Love is an emotion. It reflects a certain mind-state. Since for atheists the phrase “spiritual” relationship is meaningless, does that mean that atheists are incapable of love?

Does the fact that children do not know they are breathing make them incapable of breathing?

Why is that relevant? If a human is in danger, and a robot sacrifices “itself” to save that human, why do you deny that it is a meaningful self-sacrifice?

If a terrorist forces me at gunpoint to break into a bank, am I fully culpable for that action? Likewise, if a congressman forces you to give all your money to the poor, are you to be commended for your action? Most people would say that responsibility requires free will. If your intuition tells you otherwise, then I guess we’ll just never agree.

Why is “free will” a necessary condition? It has nothing to do with the others. You still did not give any reason why free will should be included as a prerequisite. An action on behalf of the “loved” one is meaningful, no matter how that action is initiated.

I have explained why free will is necessary. But do you really believe that last statement? An action on behalf of a loved one is meaningful, in every single case? What if you kill five people because they made scary faces at your grandmother? Is that meaningful?

Once again, “action on behalf” is not sufficient for love. There are many cases of “action on behalf” that are not cases of love.

Moreover, your first condition is rendered doubtful in many circumstances. If a soldier throws himself on a bomb, this action is a self-sacrifice, but that soldier might not feel any “special” pain if his comrades would perish in the blast. Yet this act is called “love” by Catholics.

He *is *experiencing pain out of love for them, which satisfies the condition. In fact, this is the pinnacle of love: to take another person’s suffering away, by suffering it yourself. And if, by chance, he survived, he would be vulnerable to their not being grateful.

 

[DCManTommy]

O Mlly, you are a rock, spectacular treatment, and brimming example. Thank you for your diligence.

 

[DCManTommy]

You described certain **attributes **of “love”, but that still does not tell me just what love is supposed to mean…

You are looking for the secular body of knowledge known as Psychology to satisfy your “rationality”.

Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary emotions. Love is one of them. It requires free will. The Catholic Church is in agreement with the secular academic authority on this.

 

[DCManTommy]

I am using the definition of love as it is being used by Christians. My definition would be different: “love is an emotion, which should be expressed in actions to be meaningful”. If you disagree that love is action on behalf of someone else’s interest (and maybe even acting against one’s own interest - sacrificial love) then it is quite ok by me. But in that case you don’t argue on Catholic grounds.

Think about doctors. They take the Hyppocratic oath, so they give up their “free will” whether they want to help their patients or not - they are obligated by their oath to help them. Who cares if they have an emotion toward their patients? Would any positive or negative emotion be relevant at all? Of course it would not.

Who cares? Actions matter, the underlying emotion does not. Even if one views love only as an emotion, it does not matter how that emotion came into existence.

How do you know that? In any way they would know how to act in a helpful manner. They would even sacrifice themselves for human beings - if constructed according to Asimov’s three laws of robotics. And self-sacrifice is considered the highest form of love, is it not?

For your answers, you must seek: The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 3, pg 139, The Problem of Evil, MacMillan Publishing Co. Paul Edwards (editor). If you truly care about the incontestable Christian answer to your question - that is - the fact that the dogma does not contradict itself (whether you believe in the dogma or not) - you will find this and read to your heart’s content. Then, put an end to your self-serving game with these good Christians.

 

[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.