Necessary suffering? Example?

[benjohnson]

Good try, but that is technology driven. God’s omnipotence could eradicate cancer altogether, or create a painless cure for it.

God may chose to do that, but he may not want take away the opportunity for us to care for others who have cancer.

 

[benjohnson]

Only the unnecessary, gratuitous suffering. That is why I ask for ONE example of logically ncessary suffering, which cannot be lessened… but so far, in vain.

God allowed me to suffer so that I may be drawn to his Church and that I may learn to love not only Him, but my family. He could have forced me to his church, but that would be blind obedience and not love.

Basically, in short, without suffering we would find charity and compassion meaningless.

 

[Trurl]

God may chose to do that, but he may not want take away the opportunity for us to care for others who have cancer.

Cop-out. Those who have cancer, did not “opt-in” to become objects of somene else’s “caring”. It is unacceptable to inflict pain and suffering on person “A”, just so that person “B” would benefit from it. It is a doctrine that people cannot be treated as “objects”.

God allowed me to suffer so that I may be drawn to his Church and that I may learn to love not only Him, but my family. He could have forced me to his church, but that would be blind obedience and not love.

There is not much of “freedom” in obeying the demand expressed in the first commandment: “You MUST love God… etc”. And of course there are many people who are not drawn to God, because of their suffering. They righfully say that a good, benevolent God would not allow even “seemingly” unnecessary suffering. If the suffering would be necessary, then God would at least come and comfort them, and explain why the suffering was necessary.

Basically, in short, without suffering we would find charity and compassion meaningless.

True, and the world would be MUCH better without them. The old saying: “to make a virtue out of necessity” condemns the hypocrisy of trying to explain away the suffering by bringing up bogus “benefits”.

 

[benjohnson]

True, and the world would be MUCH better without them. The old saying: “to make a virtue out of necessity” condemns the hypocrisy of trying to explain away the suffering by bringing up bogus “benefits”.

The benefits are not “bogus” - you may not like the trade, but compassion and charity are anything but “bogus.”

Here is the crux: our viewpoints are different. You care deeply about the world. Christians care deeply about eternity, and place the cares of this world as secondary.

You are indeed correct in that compassion would be unnecessary in a perfect world - but it is obvious that we don’t live in a perfect world.

Christians reconcile this paradox by looking forward to the “world to come”, and while we are here, we try to give and receive as much compassion as we can.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Trurl;
There is not much of “freedom” in obeying the demand expressed in the first commandment: "You MUST love God…

When we feed the hungry, cloth the naked, give shelter to the homeless, so we do it to Christ. We can only love God by the way we love all our neighbours as we love ourselves, this is a greatest good.

The command to love others also gives us the freedom to ignore this, and we witness this through all the troubles in the world.

We are asked to pray to God our Father and it is reasuring to know that he loves his children as he loves himself.

 

[JDaniel]

It was merely an example. There are infinitely many ways to “wake up” that “rich person”, without inflicting the suffering of the bystandards.

Trurl:

Whatever that means. Oh, well, nevermind I think I’ve figured it out for myself. Absolutely, there are many ways to wake up that person, rich or not. You asked for one, and I gave you one. That’s all you asked for. Do you now want more than one? Will you make up your mind? Soon?

Why do I have to spell out everything in minute detail?

Shallow Trurl. You can’t spell anything out. In fact, you have no idea of the meaning of the example I presented.

Someone help this person, please!

God bless,
jd

 

[fred_conty]

I have no problem with pain and suffering which is volitional. If someone wishes to emulate Jesus’s passion by having himself crucified, that is his own business, and no one should interfere.

We could not p(name removed by moderator)oint it with 10 decimal’s worth of accuracy, but we sure can make a good, educated guess. Suppose that someone could point out the greater good, which was the direct, logical corollary of the holocaust. It would be clear that if the holocaust never happened, then this “good” would never have come to pass. So at that point we have some untold amount of suffering, which was logically necessary for the ensuing greater good. So far, so “good”.

This is the question: “suppose that one of the victims would have avoided the capture, by sheer luck” (there were many who did). To make the holocaust “logically necessary” the proponent of the “greater good defense” in under the obligation to explain why and how the lucky escape of one person would have negated the “good”.

Christians believe that Jesus is God and died on the cross for all mankind, by the will of his Father.

Now we know that the Father could have chosen a different easier path than the cross for Jesus his only beloved Son to accomplish the same thing, salvation of all mankind.

But the Father didn’t.

This is where suffering accomplished a greater good, but could have been accomplished with less suffering had the Father willed it.

So is it not correct to say, if one accepts the above, that that amount of suffering, for the greater good, is correct for that moment in time.

Time is important to this aspect of suffering. It should not be ignored for it is part of us in what we live in. Suffering is done at a specific time. The same suffering done at a different time may hardly be called suffering given different circumstances in another time. So suffering and time are logically hooked together.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Trurl]

When we feed the hungry, cloth the naked, give shelter to the homeless, so we do it to Christ.

I do that, and it has nothing to do with Christ. Of course, I was told that actually I do is fro Christ, even if I am unaware of it. That person who said it, was immediately put on “ignore”.

 

[Trurl]

The benefits are not “bogus” - you may not like the trade, but compassion and charity are anything but “bogus.”

Here is the crux: our viewpoints are different. You care deeply about the world. Christians care deeply about eternity, and place the cares of this world as secondary.

To consider something what MAY NOT exist to be more important than something that CERTAINLY exists is definitely foolish in view. I would like to win a jackpot on the lottery and I can “hope” to win it, but to live AS IF I already won it, would be extremely foolish.

You are indeed correct in that compassion would be unnecessary in a perfect world - but it is obvious that we don’t live in a perfect world.

Well, then the solution would be to make this world “perfect”. Since there is no logical contradiction involved, God could do it easily with a snap of his imaginary fingers.

 

[Trurl]

Christians believe that Jesus is God and died on the cross for all mankind, by the will of his Father.

Now we know that the Father could have chosen a different easier path than the cross for Jesus his only beloved Son to accomplish the same thing, salvation of all mankind.

Well said. As such it was logically UNNECESSARY.

But the Father didn’t.

This is where suffering accomplished a greater good, but could have been accomplished with less suffering had the Father willed it.

Yes, so again it was unnecessary, gratuitous suffering.

 

[benjohnson]

Well, then the solution would be to make this world “perfect”. Since there is no logical contradiction involved, God could do it easily with a snap of his imaginary fingers.

That would work. If you take away human will. God (and myself) apparently seems to think that free-will is important, and we accept his world as it is.

Even without the question of God, I would still disagree with you - as Samuel Adams puts it “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

I do that, and it has nothing to do with Christ. Of course, I was told that actually I do is fro Christ, even if I am unaware of it. That person who said it, was immediately put on “ignore”.

You must have a lot of people on your ignore list.

Just out of interest, is God, too, on your ignore list?

Of course, you will ignore this post because I, too, am on your ignore list.

Seems like a powerful strategy to employ to insure the safety and security of your beliefs, just ignore everyone who disagrees with you.

 

[JDaniel]

Christians believe that Jesus is God and died on the cross for all mankind, by the will of his Father.

Now we know that the Father could have chosen a different easier path than the cross for Jesus his only beloved Son to accomplish the same thing, salvation of all mankind.

But the Father didn’t.

This is where suffering accomplished a greater good, but could have been accomplished with less suffering had the Father willed it.

So is it not correct to say, if one accepts the above, that that amount of suffering, for the greater good, is correct for that moment in time.

Time is important to this aspect of suffering. It should not be ignored for it is part of us in what we live in. Suffering is done at a specific time. The same suffering done at a different time may hardly be called suffering given different circumstances in another time. So suffering and time are logically hooked together.

Just some thoughts.

Fred:

Besides, if Christ had been given only 60 lashes with a cat-o-nine, would anyone today give it a second thought? How many lashes would someone have had to receive in order for most of the world to be aware of what he did and why?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

You must have a lot of people on your ignore list.

Just out of interest, is God, too, on your ignore list?

Of course, you will ignore this post because I, too, am on your ignore list.

Seems like a powerful strategy to employ to insure the safety and security of your beliefs, just ignore everyone who disagrees with you.

Peter:

You’re not on my ignore list! Of course, I may be on Trurl’s ignore list. Hoperfully, all of us will, sooner of later. Then, we can get back to more rational business.

God bless,
jd

 

[benjohnson]

Just out of interest, is God, too, on your ignore list?

 

[Trurl]

Oh, what the heck… I have a few mins to waste.

You must have a lot of people on your ignore list.

I sure do. There are a few, very few people with whom I can conduct a fruitful conversation, **WITHOUT agreeing **(!!!) and I cherish those contacts. By the way, I do NOT employ the “ignore” feature of the board, since I am an incurable optimist, and I keep hoping that maybe (just maybe) those people come up with something worthwhile to reflect upon… though it did not happen YET.

Just out of interest, is God, too, on your ignore list?

No. Actually I keep asking God to touch base, but he is soooo aloof. And when I ask him to speak to me, your “cronies” SCREAM at me at the top of their lungs: “just who do you think you are (you miserable piece of dog-turd) to ORDER God to do your bidding”. And: “how dare you to demand that God MUST meet you on your own terms???”. Well, this is the reason I ignore so many of you.

Of course, you will ignore this post because I, too, am on your ignore list.

Actually, I did answer this post. But I will not make a habit out of it.

Seems like a powerful strategy to employ to insure the safety and security of your beliefs, just ignore everyone who disagrees with you.

Very wrong - as usual. No one of those with whom I have a conversation agrees with me. But they use a CIVILIZED, non-confrontational tone (quite unlike … and … and…), so agreement is not important. I may even learn a few things from them.

 

[benjohnson]

SCREAM at me at the top of their lungs: “just who do you think you are (you miserable piece of dog-turd) to ORDER God to do your bidding”.

I’ve heard of voices inside of people heads, but if I get them, I would be thankful if they didn’t start saying nasty things about me.

 

[fred_conty]

Well said. As such it was logically UNNECESSARY.

Yes, so again it was unnecessary, gratuitous suffering.

If you will give me the benefit of the doubt for the sake of the argument, that this is truely God the Father who asked his beloved Son to suffer, won’t that establish the “necessity” right there?

Even tho, from our point of view, we might consider some lesser suffering that may have been substituted, nevertheless this was God the Father and therefore would only ask that which was necessary for each and every person to see the truth in the best possible way.

Wouldn’t that establish “necessity”, granting that this was truely God the Father?

What do you think?

 

[JDaniel]

Oh, what the heck… I have a few mins to waste.

I sure do. There are a few, very few people with whom I can conduct a fruitful conversation, **WITHOUT agreeing **(!!!) and I cherish those contacts.

Trurl:

Then why are you here? Every Catholic is going to offend your sensibilities. Every Catholic is going to be someone with whom you cannot have a fruitful discussion. Unless you are aggressively attempting to change their minds.

From your statements, it appears that only those that cave in to your way of thinking are worthy of continued conversation. Let anyone here re-read your historical posts. But, that’s right! We can’t believe what they say, as they are in the past and not manifest. Anyone could have altered them, presenting you in a less than “good” light.

(BTW, I did pray for you last night at 9:35 EST. )

God bless,
jd

 

[fred_conty]

Fred:

Besides, if Christ had been given only 60 lashes with a cat-o-nine, would anyone today give it a second thought? How many lashes would someone have had to receive in order for most of the world to be aware of what he did and why?

God bless,
jd

Actually you are right on the money. I believe it was St. Catherine of Siena in a loqution from God where it was revealed to her why the cross was chosen. It was because it was the best possible way that even the hardest of the hard might have a chance to believe in Jesus if he suffered in this way for them. And God also told her that Jesus would suffer again in the same way for any person if they would benefit by it. But the reason Jesus didn’t is because it was no longer necessary and would not get more benefit out of it.

Just a thought.