Natural Evil

[tonyrey]

Zero benefit? Well, zero benefit that you can measure for sure, since you don’t believe the child dies and goes straight to heaven.

Yes, God could abolish all suffering in one fell swoop.

He does not.

He does not because the great drama of life would be reduced to a mechanical farce.

This is not to say God cannot intervene, since he did intervene in the person of Jesus Christ.

But God does not force innocence and happiness on everyone for a reason. And those who are victims of injustice I choose to believe are compensated for their hell on earth by
their ascent to heaven.

What do you believe? That an uncaring mindless universe causes the killing of little children and that’s just too bad?

Natural evil doesn’t exist in a mindless universe - except in human minds, the opinions of which are hardly an objective feature of reality!

 

[tonyrey]

Yes. The photo of a dead refugee child on a beach had an enormous effect on millions of people.

No response!

No one can experience another person’s suffering. All we can do is judge by appearances. Endorphins in the brain alleviate pain and there is no reason why God shouldn’t increase their effect.

Yes it did have an effect.

You’re referring to a different effect, Brad!

So I guess the more there are, the better off we will be. What a wonderful world that we are all helped in some way with each death. Every little helps, eh?

Non sequitur. A particular death need not help anyone but that doesn’t imply that life is ultimately meaningless.

And of course, all the countless children that have died over the years have died with just the edge taken off their agony. Are you really sure you want to use this, Tony? That God does help…but only a little bit?

Why impose limits to God’s intervention?

 

[tonyrey]

Vaccinations made me think of something else related to this thread. Though focused more on the relation of science and religion, the following also entails the problem of suffering, specifically in the context of vaccinations.

The following is from Alister McGrath:

[Christopher] Hitchens rightly tells his readers that the Christian writer Timothy Dwight (1752-1811), a former president of Yale College, opposed smallpox vaccination. For Hitchens, Dwight’s misjudgment is typical of the backward-looking mindset of religious people…Hitchens is unquestionably justified in using smallpox vaccination as a case study of hostility to scientific advance, and in stating that Dwight opposed smallpox vaccination. But … the situation is much more complex …

…in the generation before Dwight, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), now widely regarded as America’s greatest Christian thinker, strongly advocated vaccination against smallpox. He even volunteered to receive the smallpox vaccine himself to show his students at Princeton that this new medical procedure was safe. The vaccination was not successful, and Edwards died shortly afterward.

… the influential atheist writer George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) opposed smallpox vaccination in the 1930s, ridiculing it as a “delusion” and a “filthy piece of witchcraft.” He dismissed leading scientists whose work so clearly supported it – such as Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister – as charlatans who knew nothing about the scientific method…

End quote.

So not only at the level of a parent or pet owner and their child or pet, but also at a larger societal level, we should not too quickly assume bad intent on the part of the religious or the non-religious.

I guess I simply extend that benefit of the doubt, so to speak, to God. Yes, there’s innocent suffering as well as suffering caused by bad human behaviors. But, I give God the benefit of the doubt as to theodicy (justification) in allowing it.

Those who don’t are obviously prejudiced… for no good reason.

 

[Bradski]

A particular death need not help anyone but that doesn’t imply that life is ultimately meaningless.

I’m not the one suggesting that a particular death helps anyone. You were the one to do that in an attempt to justify the bizarre quote that the world is helped by the suffering of poor people.

Why impose limits to God’s intervention?

Again, I’m not the one doing that. As far as I can see, there are no limits. Yet you suggest that he simply reduces the agony by some amount (it seems like you are uncomfortable with the fact that He might do nothing at all). It’s like a father who has a cure for his seriously ill child but simply gives her an aspirin.

 

[Richca]

That’s moral relativism writ large. You’re claiming that no one throughout history should ever have had a child because of the far higher rate of stillbirths and infant mortality than in the modern day West. Extraordinary.

No. I was commenting on the children who die from diarrhea from poor sanitation. If we look at this problem realistically, it is a human problem caused by humans. From this scenario, you make a jump to stillbirths and infant mortality which is not the same phenomenon.

 

[Richca]

The book of Job is both profound and enigmatic. Scholars have wrestled with its poetic contents, bizarre prose prologue, and surprising epilogue. There are diverse views on many aspects of the story…

In Chapters 38-41 God (finally) responds to Job in a somewhat incongruous way by presenting him with a tour of the natural world. Many readers (and scholars) would claim that God seems to be insensitive to Job and his suffering, and God’s response seems to avoid the issues of Job’s complaint. Certainly the response is not what Job—or the reader—expected. Old Testament Scholar Terrence Fretheim takes a more positive route. Fretheim argues that God’s response is one that genuinely addresses Job’s concerns and is focused on nature because therein lies a key point that God wants Job to appreciate. After all, two of Job’s original calamities were natural disasters (1:16, 19). God says that Job does not understand the way in which God’s world works. Job interprets the disorder within nature as defective and/or mismanaged creation, rather than precisely the kind of world that God intended. Consequently, although the world is good, well-ordered, and reliable, it is also wild, untamed, and not risk-free to humankind. God, then, challenges Job to recognize the proper nature of the creation and that suffering may be experienced in just such a world, quite apart from sin and evil. In so doing, Job may better appreciate what his place and role is within God’s world, even in the midst of suffering. - From God’s Good Chaos

Job’s misfortunes of which two that were natural disasters that you mention were the work of satan with the permission of God. Accordingly, Job sees his misfortunes as coming from the hand of God and divine providence. The whole book of Job I think attests to the governance of the entire universe by divine providence, of creatures both rational and irrational. Job’s friends thought that the misfortunes and suffering that befell Job were a punishment inflicted by God for his sins and not just for his past sins but for some present sin or sins. Job does not disagree with his friends that his misfortune and suffering is governed by divine providence but his conscience at least in the present does not reproach him (not that he considers himself wholly without sin) for he is a God-fearing man. And the Lord himself says to Satan “Have you noticed my servant Job, and that there is no one on earth like him, blameless and upright, fearing God and avoiding evil?” (Job 1: 8). Then the Lord permits Satan to strike Job, his wealth, livestock, family and children, then his body and health. For Satan thought that Job probably served God because of the good things that God blessed Job with, take these away and Satan thought Job would curse God. On the contrary, Job is a true servant of God, he says:

“Naked I came forth from my mother’s womb, and naked I shall go back again. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord!” (1:21)

And “We accept good things from God; and should we not accept evil?” (2:10). These two verses show Job’s faith in Divine Providence, Job saw God’s hand in his trial, misfortune and suffering. Another lesson of the book of Job I think is that as gold is tested in fire, so God proved by permitting Satan to strike Job that Job’s heart was right with God. God proved this to Satan, the world, and Job’s friends. Still another lesson of Job I think is that not all of the suffering and misfortunes that may befall some person is necessarily punishment for their sins as Job’s friends thought. Perfect justice is not meted out in this present world so we see that sometimes the wicked flourish while the just suffer or are persecuted. I think the inspired author of Job in a sense addresses this issue.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes. The photo of a dead refugee child on a beach had an enormous effect on millions of people.

No response!

No one can experience another person’s suffering. All we can do is judge by appearances. Endorphins in the brain alleviate pain and there is no reason why God shouldn’t increase their effect.

Yes it did have an effect.

You’re referring to a different effect, Brad!

So I guess the more there are, the better off we will be. What a wonderful world that we are all helped in some way with each death. Every little helps, eh?

A particular death need not help anyone but that doesn’t imply that life is ultimately meaningless.I’m not the one suggesting that a particular death helps anyone. You were the one to do that in an attempt to justify the bizarre quote that the world is helped by the suffering of poor people.

You’re going from one extreme to the other! Is the world never helped by the suffering of poor people?

And of course, all the countless children that have died over the years have died with just the edge taken off their agony. Are you really sure you want to use this, Tony? That God does help…but only a little bit?

You are the one who has introduced “a little bit”! The thin end of the wedge tactic doesn’t work in this context because we cannot feel what others feel.

Why impose limits to God’s intervention?

Again, I’m not the one doing that. As far as I can see, there are no limits. Yet you suggest that he simply reduces the agony by some amount (it seems like you are uncomfortable with the fact that He might do nothing at all). It’s like a father who has a cure for his seriously ill child but simply gives her an aspirin.

Non sequitur. There must be limits to God’s intervention: if He prevented all suffering we would no longer be free to choose what to believe and how to behave. We would know for certain a benevolent Power is protecting us because there would be no scientific explanation for such an anomaly. We could be as careless and foolish as we liked safe in the knowledge we would never come to any harm.

 

[tonyrey]

God certainly doesn’t make anyone or anything suffer as punishment or reward or to purify or whatever but we can make punish, reward, purify and make ourselves suffer. Otherwise we don’t have free will.

Correction:

God certainly doesn’t make anyone or anything suffer as punishment or reward or to purify or whatever but we can punish, reward, purify and make ourselves suffer.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I’m surprised that no one has mentioned Satan, who is the father of all the evil in this world.

 

[ynotzap]

But it does appear that a lot of Christians believe that suffering brings us closer to God. That it could be described as a plus. Just check out this quote from Mother Theresa:

“I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.” - See more at: patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2008/05/mother-teresa/#sthash.OaEwSZR7.dpuf

Would anyone like to support that quote?

Mother Theresa was a Catholic nun who devoted herself to work among the poorest of the poor in India. Her statement reflects her deep faith and love for Christ and humanity. She knew that Christ identifies Himself with the poor. Jesus stated that " when you even give a cup of water to someone in My Name, you give it to Me " She knowing that the fate that befalls them, God allows it for the greater good. The greater good is the salvation of men. To accept their lot is to conform to the will of God. The will of God ultimately is the union of mankind with Himself eternally. So they physically and spiritually participate is the suffering of Jesus Christ, who did the will of His Father (who didn’t spare His own Son for us) In union with Jesus they suffered, and in union with Jesus they are glorified. Without the Faith one could never understand the actions of a spiritual person, especially the secular world that you made reference to in the secular article. She also stated that a country that aborts it’s most innocent is truly the poorest of the poor (para-phrased). She also realized that Jesus associated with sinners, and He was criticized for it. Jesus stated that the righteous didn’t need salvation, but sinners did. She received the same type criticism He did, a good sign that she was united to Jesus Christ in her life. The article also called the dogmas of the Catholic Church irrational, I and others have found that to be an irrational statement, but I can understand why the secular world would think that, what does it know about Christianity, Faith, and God, the blind leading the blind.

Bradski:

So the suffering of a two year old before she dies seems to be acceptable in some way. But I’ll state again what I posted earlier: Surely God has compassion for that child. We do. And we do all we can to help (well, we would if we were active in her life). But God doesn’t. She has to suffer and there is zero benefit. Go figure…

You judge without full knowledge of God’s actions, does dying necessarily mean that God has not compassionated the child, that child still lives in God, but how would you know that? What God brings into existence, He keeps in existence, He does not create to uncreate, His actions are eternal How do you know there is no benefit? We can’t figure without spiritual understanding that comes with the gift of Christian Faith. True Faith is not the product of reasoning, although it is not contrary to reasoning, the source of both is God.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Mother Theresa was a Catholic nun who devoted herself to work among the poorest of the poor in India. Her statement reflects her deep faith and love for Christ and humanity. She knew that Christ identifies Himself with the poor. Jesus stated that " when you even give a cup of water to someone in My Name, you give it to Me " She knowing that the fate that befalls them, God allows it for the greater good. The greater good is the salvation of men. To accept their lot is to conform to the will of God. The will of God ultimately is the union of mankind with Himself eternally. So they physically and spiritually participate is the suffering of Jesus Christ, who did the will of His Father (who didn’t spare His own Son for us) In union with Jesus they suffered, and in union with Jesus they are glorified. Without the Faith one could never understand the actions of a spiritual person, especially the secular world that you made reference to in the secular article. She also stated that a country that aborts it’s most innocent is truly the poorest of the poor (para-phrased). She also realized that Jesus associated with sinners, and He was criticized for it. Jesus stated that the righteous didn’t need salvation, but sinners did. She received the same type criticism He did, a good sign that she was united to Jesus Christ in her life. The article also called the dogmas of the Catholic Church irrational, I and others have found that to be an irrational statement, but I can understand why the secular world would think that, what does it know about Christianity, Faith, and God, the blind leading the blind.

You judge without full knowledge of God’s actions, does dying necessarily mean that God has not compassionated the child, that child still lives in God, but how would you know that? What God brings into existence, He keeps in existence, He does not create to uncreate, His actions are eternal How do you know there is no benefit? We can’t figure without spiritual understanding that comes with the gift of Christian Faith. True Faith is not the product of reasoning, although it is not contrary to reasoning, the source of both is God.

Amen, great post.

 

[inocente]

Not if the purging is voluntary. Otherwise we are all perfect and have nothing to regret.

Purging sounds either masochistic or like a medical procedure to me, that’s why I called it dark. In common with most non-Catholics, I don’t accept the doctrine of purgatory, as it’s not in the bible.

Original sin doesn’t preclude original innocence. It presupposes it!

I meant that as a Baptist I don’t accept the doctrine of original (ancestral) sin nor the need for infant baptism - we don’t inherit guilt.

 

[inocente]

No. I was commenting on the children who die from diarrhea from poor sanitation. If we look at this problem realistically, it is a human problem caused by humans. From this scenario, you make a jump to stillbirths and infant mortality which is not the same phenomenon.

It’s only 160 years since cholera was first linked to water supply. I can’t understand why you think uneducated primitive peoples could (a) know about germs, (b) know that the river water they drink might be contaminated from waste put in far away upstream, or (c) what else they are supposed to drink. A large proportion of the planet doesn’t live in modern cities with piped water and sewerage, nor do they know about germs, nor do they have any resources. Just as you’re not being irresponsible or to blame if you don’t know how to stop cancer, they are surely not irresponsible or to blame for what they don’t know.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Purging sounds either masochistic or like a medical procedure to me, that’s why I called it dark. In common with most non-Catholics, I don’t accept the doctrine of purgatory, as it’s not in the bible.

I meant that as a Baptist I don’t accept the doctrine of original (ancestral) sin nor the need for infant baptism - we don’t inherit guilt.

If infants don’t need baptism, why should adults need it?

Do you also not accept the sacraments of the Eucharist and Confession (Reconciliation) which are mentioned in the Scriptures?

And why is the Bible your ultimate authority when it was not even assembled and the books authorized as genuine until the Catholic Church did so in the 4th Century?

The Church created the New Testament through the sacred tradition of Councils.

The New Testament did not create the Church.

 

[ynotzap]

Purging sounds either masochistic or like a medical procedure to me, that’s why I called it dark. In common with most non-Catholics, I don’t accept the doctrine of purgatory, as it’s not in the bible.

Holy Scripture:It is…a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they be loosed from sin"(2 Mach. 12:46) St.Paul (1Cor. 3:ll) speaks of those who , having some remnants of sin mixed with good works, will be saved in the next life (through fire) Tradition: In the first centuries there was no explicit doctrine on purgatory, but they had the liturgical usage of prayers for the dead, reflected in the inscriptions of the Catacombs. From the time of St.Augustine the doctrine of purgatory was developed which continues substantially unchanged in the East and the West. The Scholastics treat of Purgatory as of something belonging to the doctrine of faith. Luther and Calvin were wrong, rejecting purgatory as a diabolic invention. There is in Purgatory a temporary pain of loss (privation of the vision and possession of God,) mitigated by the sure hope of entering paradise after due expiation. A pain of sense commonly is admitted by the Fathers and theologians, fire not excluded. Purgatory will only last to the day of judgement (Rev, 21"27 )"Nothing unclean shall enter Heaven’ Purgation is used to mean “purify or refine” as gold is refined in fire, impurities are removed, to make perfect in the spiritual sense.

Inocente:

I meant that as a Baptist I don’t accept the doctrine of original (ancestral) sin nor the need for infant baptism - we don’t inherit guilt.

Have you understood where the Catholic Church derived the doctrine of Original sin and it’s consequences? Or why Martin Luther left the Catholic Church? Or where Original justice preceeded Original sin and was lost until Jesus made it possible to be reinstated ?

 

[tonyrey]

Not if the purging is voluntary. Otherwise we are all perfect and have nothing to regret.

You don’t believe in the need for spiritual medicine? You have nothing to regret nor wish to make amends for the harm you have done?

In common with most non-Catholics, I don’t accept the doctrine of purgatory, as it’s not in the bible.

Are all your Christian beliefs in the Bible?
What is your source of authority when interpreting the Bible?

Original sin doesn’t preclude original innocence. It presupposes it!

I meant that as a Baptist I don’t accept the doctrine of original (ancestral) sin nor the need for infant baptism - we don’t inherit guilt.

We certainly don’t inherit guilt but we are adversely affected by the sins of our ancestors. Otherwise why did Jesus die for us?.

 

[tonyrey]

Holy Scripture:It is…a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they be loosed from sin"(2 Mach. 12:46) St.Paul (1Cor. 3:ll) speaks of those who , having some remnants of sin mixed with good works, will be saved in the next life (through fire) Tradition: In the first centuries there was no explicit doctrine on purgatory, but they had the liturgical usage of prayers for the dead, reflected in the inscriptions of the Catacombs. From the time of St.Augustine the doctrine of purgatory was developed which continues substantially unchanged in the East and the West. The Scholastics treat of Purgatory as of something belonging to the doctrine of faith. Luther and Calvin were wrong, rejecting purgatory as a diabolic invention. There is in Purgatory a temporary pain of loss (privation of the vision and possession of God,) mitigated by the sure hope of entering paradise after due expiation. A pain of sense commonly is admitted by the Fathers and theologians, fire not excluded. Purgatory will only last to the day of judgement (Rev, 21"27 )"Nothing unclean shall enter Heaven’ Purgation is used to mean “purify or refine” as gold is refined in fire, impurities are removed, to make perfect in the spiritual sense.

Have you understood where the Catholic Church derived the doctrine of Original sin and it’s consequences? Or why Martin Luther left the Catholic Church? Or where Original justice preceded Original sin and was lost until Jesus made it possible to be reinstated ?

Excellent response!

 

[wmw]

There is no guilt in not being granted gifts. Calling it inherited guilt is a false understanding of Original Sin.

According to Catholic theology man has not lost any of his natural faculties from the sin of Adam. Man has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right:

1. the complete mastery of his passions,
2. exemption from death,
3. sanctifying grace,
4. the vision of God in the next life.

The Creator, whose gifts originally given beyond the nature of the human race, had the right to bestow them on such conditions as He wished and to make their conservation depend on the fidelity of the head of the family.

 

[Richca]

There is no guilt in not being granted gifts. Calling it inherited guilt is a false understanding of Original Sin.

I disagree on this one. The Council of Trent in its dogmatic decrees on original sin states:

“If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed; let him be anathema.”

I would not say that the holy fathers of the Council of Trent had a false understanding of original sin. On the contrary, it is the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church in all its teaching and to the truth. We inherit original sin from our first parents along with that which follows sin, namely, guilt, for all men have sinned in Adam (cf. Romans 5:12). Thus, even infants are baptized “for the remission of sins.”

 

[inocente]

If infants don’t need baptism, why should adults need it?

They don’t. In common with most Protestant traditions our only sacraments are communion and (believer’s) baptism. Though we tend to call them ordinances as we don’t accept that a rite can be anything other than symbolic. We reject any need for intermediaries between the individual and God.

But how is any of this relevant to the thread topic?