Love and Suffering

  • Thread starter Thread starter clmowry
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

clmowry

Guest
To me it is apparent that suffering is necessary. i.e. God allows suffering, therefore it is necessary. (This is obviously not readily apparent to many others.)

I can’t even imagine what a physical world without pain would be like, but the fact that I can’t imagine it does not prove that it couldn’t exist.

If God had never conceived of a physical creation would there have been no suffering?

As one would expect, there is very little in the way of revelation that does not concern the demands of our physical existence in relationship to our spiritual end, but we do have some information about our spiritual cousins, the angels.

I assume that God loves all of His creatures, including all of His angels and that He desires that they love him in return.

Yet in this spiritual existence, free of all physical needs, some number of His angels chose to reject Him.

God did not apparently see any value in the creation of creatures that had no choice but to do His will. (Which makes sense to me, they would be nothing more than extensions of Himself, what would be the point? It would be like pretending a puppet I control loves me.)

Instead He created Angels who were capable of choosing to Love Him or not.

But why did they make a choice? It seems completely illogical to me that some Angels would choose to separate themselves from God for no apparent reason.

It seems to me that there must have been some “cost” involved in loving God that these Angels would not pay.

The indication from scripture seems to be that the love of their own near perfection, the love of self, was sufficiently great, in some cases to drive them to make themselves their own desired end. (Possibly as a direct result of their being privy to the creation of man and the resulting Incarnation.)

Doesn’t this get at the nature of Love?

In order for the Angel to love God, wasn’t it necessary that there be a cost, some sort of sacrifice or suffering which they would freely make? Doesn’t loving someone mean meeting their needs at the expense of your own?

In the case of the angels, they could either choose to love God and thereby embrace the “suffering” that results in a “loss of self” as their definitive end or they could choose to avoid that loss and reject God.

Ultimately, by rejecting God they trade the potential loss of self for the pain of loss resulting from separation from Him.

Could it have been any other way?

Is there such a thing as Love without Suffering?

Chuck
 
I have thought about your metaphysical mathematics.

Very interesting.

Yet, even if loving God did cost angels something in terms of self-love, didn’t loving God also GET the angels something in terms of graces received back from God in reply to that sacrifice on the part of the angel.

We humans make a sacrifice to love our spouse, our children, or our God. Yet, we expect to reap a net gain as a result of that sacrifice (loss), right? It costs to change diapers for a few years, but then, later in life, you have someone to do good things for you. It costs to go to Mass each week, but then in eternity, you expect to enjoy the pleasures of being with God in paradise.

So, I come back to your question: Why would any angel rebel against God, knowing all that an angel must know?

I say it makes no sense, and there is no way to make any sense of it down here on earth in this mortal state. So, I say, lets just get on with life, and leave these matters to eternity.

What do you say?
 
Bartolome_Casas said:
I have thought about your metaphysical mathematics.

Very interesting.

Yet, even if loving God did cost angels something in terms of self-love, didn’t loving God also GET the angels something in terms of graces received back from God in reply to that sacrifice on the part of the angel.
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure. I “think”, unlike us, they had already received all that they were going to receive. He had already created them, they were already aware of Him and in His presence. They had no needs to be met (I think.)
We humans make a sacrifice to love our spouse, our children, or our God. Yet, we expect to reap a net gain as a result of that sacrifice (loss), right? It costs to change diapers for a few years, but then, later in life, you have someone to do good things for you. It costs to go to Mass each week, but then in eternity, you expect to enjoy the pleasures of being with God in paradise.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but, thant’s not “why” we love. (At least I hope that not why I love.) If my wife were to go into a coma and would never reciprcate in any way I would still care for her until her natural death. It certainly makes it easier to love, but this sounds alot like conditional love. We are obviously called by Christ to a much higher standard. i.e. Love our neighbors, even our enemies etc.
So, I come back to your question: Why would any angel rebel against God, knowing all that an angel must know?

I say it makes no sense, and there is no way to make any sense of it down here on earth in this mortal state. So, I say, lets just get on with life, and leave these matters to eternity.

What do you say?
Click to expand...
The choice of the angels that rejected God doesn’t make much sense to me either, but I think trying to make sense of it might be of use in understanding the need for suffering here on Earth.

I think that “suffering” must exist in order for there to be “love” and that understanding whether this is true or not in light of what, in theory, is the much simpler existence of a purely spiritual being might be a good starting point in articulating whether this is true or not in the physical world as well.

Given our limited knowledge of their nature and the state of their existence, perhaps not.

Thanks for the response,

Chuck
 
I say: The value of knowing the meaning of things is greatly overrated.

Would you rather read a detailed psychological and physiological analysis of the human experience of “falling in love,” or would you rather in fact fall in love?

Alas, today’s world is full of scholars. We are all so educated now!

But the saints, the real saints, LOVE rather than THINK about what love is.

St. Thomas Aquinas supposed said:

“I would rather feel compassion than know the meaning of it.”

But what do I know? Ask a Saint!
 
Jesus who had to power to right all wrongs, hunger,sickness,death. He Himself said that poor will be with us always. Suffering, sickness, poverty will be with us always because it is only through such situations God will know if we have compassion, will know if we are charitable. It is the only way we can be judged. Matt 25 v31-40 the last judgement. It is a judgement of the heart.

If there was no poverty,suffering, crime then Matt 25v31-40 would be irrelevant.
 
clmowry said:
To me it is apparent that suffering is necessary. i.e. God allows suffering, therefore it is necessary. (This is obviously not readily apparent to many others.)

I can’t even imagine what a physical world without pain would be like, but the fact that I can’t imagine it does not prove that it couldn’t exist.

If God had never conceived of a physical creation would there have been no suffering?

As one would expect, there is very little in the way of revelation that does not concern the demands of our physical existence in relationship to our spiritual end, but we do have some information about our spiritual cousins, the angels.

I assume that God loves all of His creatures, including all of His angels and that He desires that they love him in return.

Yet in this spiritual existence, free of all physical needs, some number of His angels chose to reject Him.

God did not apparently see any value in the creation of creatures that had no choice but to do His will. (Which makes sense to me, they would be nothing more than extensions of Himself, what would be the point? It would be like pretending a puppet I control loves me.)

Instead He created Angels who were capable of choosing to Love Him or not.

But why did they make a choice? It seems completely illogical to me that some Angels would choose to separate themselves from God for no apparent reason.

It seems to me that there must have been some “cost” involved in loving God that these Angels would not pay.

The indication from scripture seems to be that the love of their own near perfection, the love of self, was sufficiently great, in some cases to drive them to make themselves their own desired end. (Possibly as a direct result of their being privy to the creation of man and the resulting Incarnation.)

Doesn’t this get at the nature of Love?

In order for the Angel to love God, wasn’t it necessary that there be a cost, some sort of sacrifice or suffering which they would freely make? Doesn’t loving someone mean meeting their needs at the expense of your own?

In the case of the angels, they could either choose to love God and thereby embrace the “suffering” that results in a “loss of self” as their definitive end or they could choose to avoid that loss and reject God.

Ultimately, by rejecting God they trade the potential loss of self for the pain of loss resulting from separation from Him.

Could it have been any other way?

Is there such a thing as Love without Suffering?

Chuck
Click to expand...
I look forward to your discussion on this thread. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.
 
I feel the willingness to suffer for others is the proof of love. For example the love between wife and husband -----the love is the supreme willingness to sacrifice anything for the other.
When it comes to personal, every pain and suffering is to be taken as a cross and carry it and follow Jesus. Our intention and our mental submission of all these at the feet of Jesus is what is required. He is the only one who can console us pacify us
 
clmowry said:
But why did they make a choice? It seems completely illogical to me that some Angels would choose to separate themselves from God for no apparent reason.
Click to expand...
First… oh my goodness! I tried quoting you, and the formatting is insane!

Secondly, as an alternative theory (this is by NO means canonical, but it’s worth thinking about), remember that they rebelled when humanity was created.
There are many SciFi/Fantasy stories that deal with immortals who are envious of humanity precisely because of their mortality and limitations.

I imagine that we are capable of passions and emotions impossible to the angels, things like wonder, imagination, discovery, falling in love, and the ability to give ourselves entirely.

I can imagine some of the angels being envious of the temporal existence of humans, and wishing they’d had it for themselves. It may well be that the concept of “new experiences” does not exist in Heaven, and so the angels left Heaven seeking a pleasure they though to be denied them.

I want to stress that I do not think Heaven is a bad place or that exile from it is good. I compare the difference to falling in love vs. being in love. Falling in love, when I was 16, was great and all, and because I was a dumb kid, I did it often, and with gusto. I am now happily married for years with one child and another on the way. I would not trade the blissful, lasting love I have now for a million “new loves,” but I do know some who don’t seem to understand this and are always pursuing the next new love of their lives… and those people are never happy.
 
David_Castlen said:
You say there is not way to love wihtout pain in a sinful world; please expand:)
Click to expand...
My apologies. 🙂

When sin entered the world, every good thing God gave us was altered in a bad way or substituted. Love is an example.
 
White_Peony said:
In a world free from sin, yes.

In sinful world, no.
Click to expand...
But let’s say you had a “world” free from “sin” (say the Angels prior to physical creation for example). Is “sacrifice” (of some kind) a necessary attribute of Love?

Chuck
 
Maybe I need to start more simply.

How is “Love” defined?

Love obviously comes in several different varieties. These have been categorized (not sure by who) as affection (Storge), friendship (Philia), romance (Eros), unconditional love (Agape).

What I want to talk about is “unconditional love” – Agape love. Does this type of Love require some sort of loss (“suffering”, “pain” or “evil”) on the part of one who loves (and perhaps on the object of his affection)?.

Many of us had the following reading at our weddings.

1 Corinthians Chapter 13:4-8

4** ****Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated, ****5 it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, ****6 ****it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. **7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. **
8 Love never fails. **

I’m not looking to define Love or validate that Love requires suffering based on scriptural proofs. I’m looking to determine if there is a logical reason that this would be the case. I simply offer up the scripture as “supporting evidence” (for Christians) that this might be worth considering.

It seems that Agape is “unconditional, self-sacrificing, active, volitional, and thoughtful” but are all of these necessary attributes of Agape, and is there a way to demonstrate this logically?

It seems that in order to Love a being must take action to improve the well being of another.

Is it not necessary, therefore, that in order to Love, as a bare minimum we must “sacrifice” the time and energy that would/could have otherwise been focused on ourselves?

Is it therefore necessary that in order to love:

The Object of our Love must be in need. i.e. must be Suffering
We must sacrifice of ourselves. i.e. Suffer

If this is true, does Love not therefore necessitate the existence of “Evil”?

I’ve never taken a logic class, so could one of you Theology/Philosophy types help a brother out?

How do I formulate these thoughts into a “logical” proposition?

Thanks in advance for you help.

YBIC,

Chuck
 
clmowry said:
But let’s say you had a “world” free from “sin” (say the Angels prior to physical creation for example). Is “sacrifice” (of some kind) a necessary attribute of Love?

Chuck
Click to expand...
It is an interesting question to consider.

In a world free from sin, we would love God with our whole hearts, minds and soul - and our neighbour as ourselves. We would still have our personal likes and dislikes since this is quite human - a part of our unique “personality” - and in a world free of sin, our likes and dislikes would have nothing morally wrongful about them. However in loving, we would be willing to sacrifice our own likes and dislikes in the interests of the other, putting their needs and dislikes over our own. Hence, love would have an aspect of (willing) sacrifice even in a world free of sin.

On the other hand, in a world free from sin, our love would be perfect and our heart, mind and soul would absolutely love God above all things - and our likes and dislikes would also be perfected - that is our likes and dislikes would be inclusive of the needs of the other as intrinsic to our own need. Hence in a world free of sin, love would have no aspect of sacrifice, as in Heaven.

A totally 'armchair; opinion.
 
TiggerS said:
A totally 'armchair; opinion.
Click to expand...
Yeah that is sort of where I am.

But it makes sense to me!

We can argue about the degree of “suffering” or “evil” but it seems to me that some form of suffering is an absolute necessity in order for there to be any love at all.

I think this flows into why there “needed to be” the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection.

How else could God show His “Perfect Love” for us?

John 15:13 “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

Similarly, IF we are to love completely there must necessarily be types of suffering in this life that would allow us to Love, up to and including this ultimate sacrifice.

The “brief” time we spend on this world allows us to become more like God in terms of His Agape Love for us. This prepares us to spend an eternity in an existence where the “only” suffering is the loss of self interest in the devotion of our Love to Him, our brethren in Heaven and those still on Earth.

Without this preparation, we would never have the opportunity to experience (either as a recipient, giver or witness) true Love.

(Somebody must have written something on this already?)

Chuck
 
Hello clmowry and all interested –
The Holy Spirit’s Blessing be on all we examine here.
Chuck, here are my thoughts on WHY some vast numbers of angels chose evil. All things happened for the angels in the instant of their creation. No time existed for them. There was no before or after as it is for us humans. They were created in the state of grace, in Sanctifying Grace … but, of course, not the Beatific Vision.
Code: 
Of course, some test, some choice, had to be given them. Their power and their beauty and their intelligence .. above all of them Lucifer’s .. occasioned St John in **Revelation** .. when addressed by an angel less than Lucifer .. to begin to fall down and worship .. the angel as God.  He had to be stopped by the angel.

No other creature was SO great, SO beautiful, SO powerful, SO intelligent, as was Lucifer.  Only God surpassed Lucifer (infinitely).

Lucifer’s choice was between himSELF and God. And, I think, beyond that, it was made known to all the angels that in the future God would become a real man -- a worm, dirt, matter, flesh -- and that man would be Lord and Master of all creation, of all angels. That man they would worship as God.

I think this above all Lucifer could not, WOULD not, accept. He chose for himSELF rather than that man-thing who would also be God.  “Rather to rule in hell than to serve [a human being] in Heaven!” (Dante’s *Paradise Lost*)
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The questions you shared are magnificent questions, thought provoking questions. (Thank you.) You asked, “Is there such a thing as love without suffering?” There is such Love in the Trinity (considering the Trinity without reference to the Incarnation). Of course, the Father and Son and Holy Spirit in their Eternal Processions do not suffer.
Code: 
But considering all possible and actual finite beings, creatures, I think it is necessary to say that suffering is absolutely necessary. Why? Because of the absolute necessity of becoming, maturing, growing, developing, evolving -- unless, of course, God would want puppets. But God will have nothing ever to do with puppets.

And unconditional love? Yes, of course, in the Trinity. Between or among creatures? There are instances where one human being has given his/her life that another human being might live or be spared some great suffering. “No one has greater love than to lay down one’s life for another.”  I am not using Scripture to prove this. We don’t need Scripture here. There are people who have done it.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Code: 
Meaning is all important. Without meaning there is no value, no worth. I like to think of the knowledge each of us has, some greater, some less, as viewing reality through a giant lens, which, at our beginning is WAY out of focus. What we see is real and true but it’s so out of focus that almost nothing has meaning. But as our years go forward, we enjoy, we suffer, we sin, we repent (hopefully) .. and we joy some more and shed many tears some more -- AND WE LEARN .. we grow and mature (hopefully).
And all the time that lens is slowly focusing. We see a tree. We see a woman. We begin to see many things but most of them unrelated. We continue. The lens focuses more. We begin to see relationships between things. And more and more. And here we are. But we are hardly finished. God’s Work is not yet done.
Code: 
Permit me to add a spiritual note here. To where is all this going? I offer two things. St Athanasius wrote centuries ago, “God became man .. so that man could become God.” And I offer these words: “When all things have been subjected to him [Jesus Christ], then also the Son [the whole Christ] must be subjected to the One, so that God may be All in all.” **1 Cor**
15:28
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Code: 
The entire meaning of our entire existence can be summed up by The Great Choice, myself or GOD. Unlike the angels our choice is a summation of choices through our lives. Our Great Choice is stretched out over time like a rubber band.

May God’s Love continue Working in us until God has accomplished God’s Great Plan.           Pray for me.       John     (JohnJFarren)
 
Thanks for the thoughts John.

Of particular intrest is the Trinity.

Does the Love expressed within the Persons of the Trinity require “suffering”.

Or is this an exeception, because we are talking of a unique Being with different properties than any created being?

Or is this the case that disproves the “rule”?

I’ll have to think on that a bit.

Chuck
JohnJFarren said:
Hello clmowry and all interested –
The Holy Spirit’s Blessing be on all we examine here.
Chuck, here are my thoughts on WHY some vast numbers of angels chose evil. All things happened for the angels in the instant of their creation. No time existed for them. There was no before or after as it is for us humans. They were created in the state of grace, in Sanctifying Grace … but, of course, not the Beatific Vision.
Code: 
Of course, some test, some choice, had to be given them. Their power and their beauty and their intelligence .. above all of them Lucifer’s .. occasioned St John in **Revelation** .. when addressed by an angel less than Lucifer .. to begin to fall down and worship .. the angel as God. He had to be stopped by the angel.

No other creature was SO great, SO beautiful, SO powerful, SO intelligent, as was Lucifer. Only God surpassed Lucifer (infinitely).

Lucifer’s choice was between himSELF and God. And, I think, beyond that, it was made known to all the angels that in the future God would become a real man -- a worm, dirt, matter, flesh -- and that man would be Lord and Master of all creation, of all angels. That man they would worship as God.

I think this above all Lucifer could not, WOULD not, accept. He chose for himSELF rather than that man-thing who would also be God. “Rather to rule in hell than to serve [a human being] in Heaven!” (Dante’s *Paradise Lost*)
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The questions you shared are magnificent questions, thought provoking questions. (Thank you.) You asked, “Is there such a thing as love without suffering?” There is such Love in the Trinity (considering the Trinity without reference to the Incarnation). Of course, the Father and Son and Holy Spirit in their Eternal Processions do not suffer.
Code: 
But considering all possible and actual finite beings, creatures, I think it is necessary to say that suffering is absolutely necessary. Why? Because of the absolute necessity of becoming, maturing, growing, developing, evolving -- unless, of course, God would want puppets. But God will have nothing ever to do with puppets.

And unconditional love? Yes, of course, in the Trinity. Between or among creatures? There are instances where one human being has given his/her life that another human being might live or be spared some great suffering. “No one has greater love than to lay down one’s life for another.” I am not using Scripture to prove this. We don’t need Scripture here. There are people who have done it.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Code: 
Meaning is all important. Without meaning there is no value, no worth. I like to think of the knowledge each of us has, some greater, some less, as viewing reality through a giant lens, which, at our beginning is WAY out of focus. What we see is real and true but it’s so out of focus that almost nothing has meaning. But as our years go forward, we enjoy, we suffer, we sin, we repent (hopefully) .. and we joy some more and shed many tears some more -- AND WE LEARN .. we grow and mature (hopefully).
And all the time that lens is slowly focusing. We see a tree. We see a woman. We begin to see many things but most of them unrelated. We continue. The lens focuses more. We begin to see relationships between things. And more and more. And here we are. But we are hardly finished. God’s Work is not yet done.
Code: 
Permit me to add a spiritual note here. To where is all this going? I offer two things. St Athanasius wrote centuries ago, “God became man .. so that man could become God.” And I offer these words: “When all things have been subjected to him [Jesus Christ], then also the Son [the whole Christ] must be subjected to the One, so that God may be All in all.” **1 Cor**
15:28
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Code: 
The entire meaning of our entire existence can be summed up by The Great Choice, myself or GOD. Unlike the angels our choice is a summation of choices through our lives. Our Great Choice is stretched out over time like a rubber band.

May God’s Love continue Working in us until God has accomplished God’s Great Plan. Pray for me. John (JohnJFarren)
Click to expand...
 
Glad I could offer something, Chuck.
Reverse God and us. God is Being, Reality … we finite beings are the “exception.” I’m using the word “exception” here loosely … but I think it will express what I mean. Think of us creatures as the imperfect “copies.” In being as we consider finite being, are necessarily the lack of the full perfection of Being, Reality, God. When God Creates … God himself is the “Archtype.” We learn about God through reason alone by examining God’s “footprints,” we creatures. Whatever goods we find in creatures, we realize that they are in God in their full and infinite Perfection. Whatever negative things we find in creatures … and they are abundant … we understand such negatives cannot exist in Infinite Being.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Code: 
Regarding the Trinity (which we cannot initiate knowing by reason alone) there cannot be suffering or any kind of passivity .. Because God, Infinite Being, is Infinitely Active .. in Infinitely Knowing God and infinitely Loving God. But here we are in Theology and Revelation .. and I think that’s not your purpose here.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I enjoy sharing with you, Chuck, in these postings. John (JohnJFarren)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top