Necessary suffering? Example?

[JDaniel]

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.

Fred:

Interesting! Thank you!

God bless,
jd

 

[Patrick1540]

The so-called greater good defense for the “problem of evil” is based upon the assumption that there is a “greater good” result, which cannot be reached (despite God’s omnipotence) without some “necessary suffering”. (There are some additional assumptions, which we can disregard for the time being.)

Is there an example of such “greater good”, which cannot be achieved without some “logically necessary suffering”? I tried to find an example, but failed. Please concentrate on a logical sequence, where the suffering is a logical pre-requiste - meaning that without the suffering the greater good cannot achieved.

Do not know, if this has already been said, didn’t read all the posts. I take this suffering or picking up our Cross what St. Paul said have a battle between the flesh and the spirit every day. Denying the flesh what it wants and being in the Spirit is the suffering we Christian do every day. The flesh wants what it wants, that is why we pray constantly to the Father," lead us not into temptation." That our flesh, not be in control. but the Holy Spirit’s Graces through the Sacraments.
God Bless

 

[Lochias]

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. 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.

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.

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

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.

And this poster has jumped the shark. Please point out where anyone here, anyone at all, has called you a “miserable piece of dog-turd.”

Also, please point how anyone with a calm and rational demeanor is now supposed to take you seriously, as you’ve used enough hyperbole and hysterics to fill a small house to the roof with nonsense.

 

[Trurl]

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?

I don’t know what the word “necessity” means for you. For me it means that it is a “necessary logical prerequisite”. As such, if something can be done with “X” amount of suffering, but it cannot be done with “X-1” amount of suffering, then “X” is necessary… however, if it is done with “X+1” amount of suffering, then the “+1” was unnecessary.

 

[Trurl]

Do not know, if this has already been said, didn’t read all the posts. I take this suffering or picking up our Cross what St. Paul said have a battle between the flesh and the spirit every day. Denying the flesh what it wants and being in the Spirit is the suffering we Christian do every day. The flesh wants what it wants, that is why we pray constantly to the Father," lead us not into temptation." That our flesh, not be in control. but the Holy Spirit’s Graces through the Sacraments.
God Bless

Yes, this was already discussed. As long as you volitionally choose your own suffering, it is no one else’s business. The problem comes, when the “suffering” is IMPOSED from the outside, without the consent of the sufferer.

 

[ColdComfort]

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.

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.

We have pointed out the logical contradiction over and over.

 

[ColdComfort]

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”.

Every so often you let the cat out. Now your calculus of suffering includes ‘the suffering of A cannot justify the greater good of B only the greater good of A’. This is the exact opposite of Christian values. No greater love… I’m sure you remember. But never mind for now.

So, God would not allow any individual to suffer to any degree unless there was no other possible way for a greater good to come about to that individual. As this does not seem to be the case you conclude that God does not exist.

Clearly such a world would exclude the existence of free will and suffering caused by moral evil. But you are unresponsive to that line of thought so let me try another in this post.

I’m not sure if people still read it but some decades ago an American rabbi wrote a book called “When Bad Things Happen to Good People” wherein he reflected on the suffering and death of his young son. He concluded that God was not omnipotent and could not have avoided the terrible thing that happened to his child. I disagree with him but it was certainly a heartfelt book and very widely read at the time.

The point I wish to make here is that even if your premise is correct it does not lead to the conclusion that God does not exist. In fact it says nothing about God’s existence only something about His nature. And there are other conclusions about His nature that could be drawn besides non-omnipotence. I don’t know that much about Calvin but I think he believed that God pre-destined individuals to Heaven or Hell without any regard to their merits. He may have had some conception of free will but because human nature was totally depraved by original sin human acts could have nothing to do with our eternal destiny.

Remember, I’m not accepting your premise. In fact, I think it’s a bad cartoon of what Catholics believe. But how does your premise lead to conclusion that God does not exist? Perhaps you’re just a Calvinist. Or God’s power is bound by more than what is logically excluded. I’m sure there are other possibilities as well.

 

[Trurl]

We have pointed out the logical contradiction over and over.

No, you did not. Your analysis was incorrect.

Every so often you let the cat out. Now your calculus of suffering includes ‘the suffering of A cannot justify the greater good of B only the greater good of A’. This is the exact opposite of Christian values. No greater love… I’m sure you remember. But never mind for now.

That “no greater love…” refers to someone who acts volitionallly… not someone who gets sacrificed against his own wish, just so that someone else may benefit from it. Is it really possible that you do not see the difference? Amazing! Can you cut out someone’s kidney to save the life of someone else, if the “donor” refuses to volunteer? And one can live with one kidney…

So, God would not allow any individual to suffer to any degree unless there was no other possible way for a greater good to come about to that individual. As this does not seem to be the case you conclude that God does not exist.

Read below.

Clearly such a world would exclude the existence of free will and suffering caused by moral evil. But you are unresponsive to that line of thought so let me try another in this post.

Nope, it would only exclude the suffering caused by moral evil. Free will can flourish just fine. God could create a world, where there is free will, and no morally incorrect actions. It is a mathematical proof read here and it is based upon the existence of free will.

I’m not sure if people still read it but some decades ago an American rabbi wrote a book called “When Bad Things Happen to Good People” wherein he reflected on the suffering and death of his young son. He concluded that God was not omnipotent and could not have avoided the terrible thing that happened to his child. I disagree with him but it was certainly a heartfelt book and very widely read at the time.

Yes, he was Rabbi Kushner, and I read the book. It was the one and only apologist book that was worth to read (and unfortunately I wasted a lot of time on reading quite a few… Kreeft, Strobel, and many more… None of them was worth the price of paper they were printed upon). He correctly concluded that the existence of suffering cannot be reconciled with the omnimax attributes of God. At least one of them must go… and he chose omnipotence.

The point I wish to make here is that even if your premise is correct it does not lead to the conclusion that God does not exist. In fact it says nothing about God’s existence only something about His nature.

It depends. If God’s omnimax attributes (or some of them) are discarded, then God may exist. However, the christian view adamantly says that the omnimax attributes are - by definition - non-negotiable, they are inseparable from God’s existence. If that is the case, then God cannot exist, just like a “married bachelor” cannot exist.

 

[ColdComfort]

It depends. If God’s omnimax attributes (or some of them) are discarded, then God may exist. However, the christian view adamantly says that the omnimax attributes are - by definition - non-negotiable, they are inseparable from God’s existence. If that is the case, then God cannot exist, just like a “married bachelor” cannot exist.

The author we referred to maintained his belief in Judaism I believe. Show us how if God is not omnipotent He cannot exist in the Christian sense. You admit that the only thing your little premise purports to prove is that the Christian view of God’s omnipotence is incorrect. And even there in a very narrow sense. One could conclude that God’s power is bound by more than the logically impossible in the case of physical suffering but still accept every other Christian belief. Such a person would be unorthodox and in Catholic circles even a heretic but show us where this amounts to saying 2+2=5. Remember again, I don’t accept the premise but even if it were true it really just becomes a rather uninteresting point doesn’t it? God’s power is bound by more than what is logically impossible in the case of physical suffering. That’s it.

If your calculus of how much suffering God would allow is directed not at the existence of a God who is not omnipotent but at the truth of Chrisianity then you must in all honesty consider all aspects of our point of view. This you have failed to do time after time in this thread and have instead narrowed the discussion, if you want to call it a discussion, to this one little puzzle.

Free will. Original sin. A fallen world. Time and Eternity. The fact that if God does exist we can not possibly understand His purposes always through reason alone, although we often can, but sometimes only through a reasonable belief in revelation. The other attributes Christians believe of God besides omnipotence and love (of which the desire that His creatures not suffer is only a part and perhaps only a small part). All these Christians ideas and more bear on the issue of physical suffering. An honest mind would consider Christianity as a whole.

 

[Trurl]

The author we referred to maintained his belief in Judaism I believe.

He may have. Makes no difference.

Show us how if God is not omnipotent He cannot exist in the Christian sense.

Read the dogmas and the catechism. Those are non-negotiable for catholics.

You admit that the only thing your little premise purports to prove is that the Christian view of God’s omnipotence is incorrect. And even there in a very narrow sense. One could conclude that God’s power is bound by more than the logically impossible in the case of physical suffering but still accept every other Christian belief.

[Poster Disagrees]

God’s power is bound by more than what is logically impossible in the case of physical suffering. That’s it.

Says you. If God’s power is negated by more than logical impossibilities, then he is not much of “god”. Besides, if you wish to take that route, you will have to draw the line “in the sand” and declare just what is “impossible” for God. Precisely, if you would.

 

[ColdComfort]

He may have. Makes no difference.

Read the dogmas and the catechism. Those are non-negotiable for catholics.

Says you. If God’s power is negated by more than logical impossibilities, then he is not much of “god”. Besides, if you wish to take that route, you will have to draw the line “in the sand” and declare just what is “impossible” for God. Precisely, if you would.

Well, I’m sorry for you sir. Perhaps what I can do is this: Your ‘argument’ does nothing to disprove the existence of a God. I strongly suspect that you, as others do, use the existence of suffering in general to support atheism and a generally materialist view of the world. But it is not so as you have admitted. If my suspicion is true then keep it in mind.

I’m afraid I’ve reach the point where I think you need prayer rather than argument. God bless.

 

[fred_conty]

Yes, this was already discussed. As long as you volitionally choose your own suffering, it is no one else’s business. The problem comes, when the “suffering” is IMPOSED from the outside, without the consent of the sufferer.

Trurl,
Would you be against civil punishment? Or grounding of children for behaviorial problems?
Or killing in a war?

Or is there some principle for imposing or not imposing?

Just a thought.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The so-called greater good defense for the “problem of evil” is based upon the assumption that there is a “greater good” result, which cannot be reached (despite God’s omnipotence) without some “necessary suffering”. (There are some additional assumptions, which we can disregard for the time being.)

Is there an example of such “greater good”, which cannot be achieved without some “logically necessary suffering”? I tried to find an example, but failed. Please concentrate on a logical sequence, where the suffering is a logical pre-requiste - meaning that without the suffering the greater good cannot achieved.

First, your idea of “logical” and God’s idea are probably significantly different. Second, we cannot understand the Eternal Truths completely while limited by physical brains. So, we depend on analogy. There are a lot of analogies in Scripture to answer the question, but here is mine:

To get from “nothingness” to being “oned with God” a transformation must take place. Time/space was created in order that we can accomplish that by God’s Grace. So, we have to come here to get to God. This is illustrated in the Garden of Eden story.

Because we inherently know what perfection is, because we are all imbued with a “spark” of the Holy Spirit, simply being here is suffering. No extras are required. But, there tend to be rather a lot of extras. Why?

Because a guy who has spent his first forty years eating burgers and pizza in a chair drinking beer watching a sports show, cannot climb to the top of a mountain. He will give up, have a heart attack, fall to his death. He has to get into shape, to suffer through the diet changes, the working out, to give up his whole life for a new way of living in order to get where he wants to go: up.

You can’t get to God after death if you have no spiritual awareness, no relationship with God, are so attached to earth you don’t want to let go. You need to learn and train and find out what your goal is, and choose that over and over and over, as practice, so at that moment when you leave here and must choose, you can choose God and not be annihilated by His Presence.

When do we turn to God? Like the saying says: no atheists in foxholes. When life starts lobbing grenades at us, that’s when we start to pray. If there was no suffering, why would anything ever change? Why would you give up one dime you had unless others were dying of hunger? Why would you turn to Divinity for help, unless you had exhausted all possibilities otherwise and were in real distress?

Thank God for suffering because without it, we’d never get to the only place any of us ever really want to be.

Oh yeah, you wanted an example: if Jesus had not suffered and died for us, almost no one would get to Heaven. It was for the greater good.

 

[Trurl]

Would you be against civil punishment? Or grounding of children for behaviorial problems?

Such generic questions cannot be answered. Be more specific.

Or killing in a war?

Very much against it. It is horrible that after all these millenia humanity still did not find a better way of conflict resolution. Violence can only be condoned in self defense.

Or is there some principle for imposing or not imposing?

It is simple. If the imposed suffering brings forth some positive results and the sufferer either agrees, or could be rationally assumed that he would assume if possessing all his faculties then it could be justified.

 

[Trurl]

Oh yeah, you wanted an example: if Jesus had not suffered and died for us, almost no one would get to Heaven. It was for the greater good.

This is old news… this has been brought up and refuted before. Read the whole thread.

 

[Lochias]

I already answered above, and such childish taunting will only reserve you a place in the bit-bucket, if you do not assume a civilized tone. You had your warning. The rest is up to you.

Bullies are frowned upon here. You’ve had your warning.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Discuss the topic, not each other.

Otherwise infractions will be issued and the thread will be closed.

 

[pig]

The so-called greater good defense for the “problem of evil” is based upon the assumption that there is a “greater good” result, which cannot be reached (despite God’s omnipotence) without some “necessary suffering”. (There are some additional assumptions, which we can disregard for the time being.)

Is there an example of such “greater good”, which cannot be achieved without some “logically necessary suffering”? I tried to find an example, but failed. Please concentrate on a logical sequence, where the suffering is a logical pre-requiste - meaning that without the suffering the greater good cannot achieved.

The so-called greater good defense for the “problem of evil” is based upon the assumption that there is a “greater good” result, which cannot be reached (despite God’s omnipotence) without some “necessary suffering”. (There are some additional assumptions, which we can disregard for the time being.)

Yes Trurl. Despite Gods Omnipotence the Devil managed to infest Gods Creation. As a result God allows us to suffer for the greater good, to overcome the devil, and be worthy citizens of Heaven. Be it His Holy Will for us.

 

[Trurl]

Yes Trurl. Despite Gods Omnipotence the Devil managed to infest Gods Creation. As a result God allows us to suffer for the greater good, to overcome the devil, and be worthy citizens of Heaven. Be it His Holy Will for us.

Interesting proposition… but you need to prove that it is logical impossibility for God to allow us into heaven without this “way-station”. Whether to be “worthy citizens” or merely allowed to sit in a dusty corner, it is supposed to be better off to be in heaven, than to suffer in hell - forever.

What you suggest is like the person who pounds his finger with a hammer… because it feels SOOO GOOD, when he stops.

 

[Patrick1540]

Yes, this was already discussed. As long as you volitionally choose your own suffering, it is no one else’s business. The problem comes, when the “suffering” is IMPOSED from the outside, without the consent of the sufferer.

Hi Trurl, your point is taken,but only the flesh can suffer.No one can touch our spirit(soul) unless we allow some one in.
God Bless