Purpose, plain and simple

[fred_conty]

Suffering is caused by something else in the natural order.
Death is caused by old age, or multiple causes.
Flu is caused by bacteria or viruses.
Floods are caused by excessive rain which causes deaths.

If your only looking at what transpires on this earth, then suffering is just a part of it.

However we know from what divine revelation has taught us, that suffering can be used to obtain heaven.

Christ suffered and died for all mankind to redeem them from hell’s grasp.
Christ said that those who suffer and die for him should rejoice for their reward will be great in the kingdom heaven.
Christ said we should deny ourselves in this life(die) to attain the kingdom of heaven(live).

St. Paul says, that “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Romans 8:18).
“… heirs of God and coheirs with Christ, sharing his sufferings so as to share his glory.”
Romans 8:17

In I Cor. 17 and following:
“The language of the cross may be illogical to those who are not on the way
to salvation, but those of us who are on the way see it as God’s power to
save… And so , while the Jews demand miracles, and the Greeks look for
wisdom, here we are preaching the crucified Christ; to the Jews an obstacle
that they cannot get over, to the pagans maddness, but to those who have
been called, whether they are Jews or Greeks, a Christ who is the power
and the wisdom of God.”

So from the above we know that first we must be spiritual to understand
the crucified Christ. Any other way will fail.

Jesus was innocent because He is the Son of God, who is all pure.
Because he was pure or guiltless, he did not deserve punishment.
Therefore he took our punishment we deserved on himself.

“In Him we have redeemption in his blood…”, (Eph 1;7)

But there will be no suffering forever when the plan of Jesus is followed, and that means forever. It also means the “why” of suffering on earth will be become clear in the wisdom of God revealed.

Some want it all now. That is not possible according to divine revelation but God will make it possible in eternity after this world. And that is a wonderful thing because our dream will come true of peace, happiness, and love, without end, and without suffering.

ON THE CHRISTIAN MEANING OF HUMAN SUFFERING by Pope John Paul II

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2SALVI.HTM

 

[JDaniel]

As I have not seen the debate the post refers to, I can’t say if I would be squarley in Dawkins’s corner. I can say this however based on the information provided: to consider the slaughter of millions of human beings as a reason and justification for a handful of German '“spiritual enlightenment” seems to me nothing more than a spiritually empty and intellectually vile excuse for mass murder.

So, as I said, I would indeed LOVE to read what the more “enlightened” forum posters here can say about that. It will be an interesting read.

Elsa1:

I doubt you’ll get many responses. As a Catholic, I don’t mind discussing a topic with someone who comes to these fora “in good faith.” But, from your language, you are already hard of heart and there’s nothing anyone can say to you that would alter that hardness, or allow the smallest benefit of doubt. You’re here just to argue, aren’t you?

God bless,
jd

 

[Elsa1]

Elsa1:

I doubt you’ll get many responses. As a Catholic, I don’t mind discussing a topic with someone who comes to these fora “in good faith.” But, from your language, you are already hard of heart and there’s nothing anyone can say to you that would alter that hardness, or allow the smallest benefit of doubt. You’re here just to argue, aren’t you?

God bless,
jd

My God! So, you judge me and calle me “hard of heart” simply, it appears, by virtue of your interpretation of “my language”! Amazing! I adore discussing with people, but that means no one should have to hold back their views. Evidently a few “good Catholics” here can’t stand it unless everyone is preachin’ to the choir. That is not the Catholic, intellectual way I was raised with. Sad to see that some people can’t hack a real conversation on interesting and valid topics.

And I must add, I have yet to read a response to my comment. Tells me people are afraid to defend the notion that millions were murdered to enlighten a few German soldiers. Happy to read that anytime someone wants to tackle that one.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Well, that’s is an intersting concept but one I refuse to accept. I was not put on this earth to be a sacrifical animal. I was born for much better and greater things than meaningless suffering and so were you. I see no evidence to suggest that if I suffer, some complete stranger suffers less.

You think what Jesus did on the Cross was meaningless? Or is it that you think we are not called to be like Him? Why did He allow His Crucifixion, do you think? Couldn’t He have had a “better and greater” life by living to old age?

Also, I am simply not willing to sacrifice my life and happiness in such a way.

That’s free will. Do you ever a sacrifice anything for anyone else? Have you ever by-passed something you wanted to give something to another? Do you ever give to a charity? Do you only do that when every possible desire you have to fulfill your own happiness has been met?

I don’t see anything in Christ’s teachings that instruct me to be a suicididalist.

I don’t know what this means. Suffering and sacrifice are not suicide.

Christ calls me and you to an abundant life, not misery. Sorry.

Those who recognize the call to a suffering life for Christ, are not miserable, they are people filled with joy. Saint Francis, Saint Faustina, Saint Therese, Mother Teresa, Padre Pio. Monks and nuns and friars… people willing to give up pleasures and make sacrifices for the benefit of others.

We call this an “exchange of spiritual goods.” God takes our sacrifice, a kind of Divine money, and uses it for the benefit of suffering souls, here and in Purgatory. This kind of suffering for another is never something that brings misery, but always great joy and peace.

 

[tonyrey]

You think what Jesus did on the Cross was meaningless? Or is it that you think we are not called to be like Him? Why did He allow His Crucifixion, do you think? Couldn’t He have had a “better and greater” life by living to old age?

That’s free will. Do you ever a sacrifice anything for anyone else? Have you ever by-passed something you wanted to give something to another? Do you ever give to a charity? Do you only do that when every possible desire you have to fulfill your own happiness has been met?

I don’t know what this means. Suffering and sacrifice are not suicide.

Those who recognize the call to a suffering life for Christ, are not miserable, they are people filled with joy. Saint Francis, Saint Faustina, Saint Therese, Mother Teresa, Padre Pio. Monks and nuns and friars… people willing to give up pleasures and make sacrifices for the benefit of others.

We call this an “exchange of spiritual goods.” God takes our sacrifice, a kind of Divine money, and uses it for the benefit of suffering souls, here and in Purgatory. This kind of suffering for another is never something that brings misery, but always great joy and peace.

Jesus told us to take up our cross…

 

[inocente]

Inocente:

If that was the case, that night, I would sincerely doubt anyone in the audience could comprehend the subtlety of the Theologian’s position. I’d say the audience was made up of schoolyard bullies that were there only for the fight. How sad.

God bless,
jd

You didn’t know who the theologian was or even hear his argument, so I can only deduce you now have special powers and divined the “subtlety” of his position out of thin air.

The debate was at that well known drunken redneck schoolyard, the Oxford Union. The -]noxious/-] saintly theologian’s name was Richard Swinborne, who also reckons another cheery bright side to the Holocaust was it gave Jews a chance to be courageous and noble. Seriously.

I don’t remember Dawkin’s own arguments, just the obscenity of Swinborne’s. Union debates are not like soccer, you don’t just cheer on your side and boo the other side come what may, you don’t support someone without even hearing his argument just because he’s booked to play against Dawkins.

 

[tonyrey]

Most living things carry the instinct of self-preservation (except for those organisms in which this is outweighed by the reproductive instinct!). Why? As far as we can tell, they just do - there is no reason for life other than the continuation of life, so it becomes rather a circular justification.

A fact that has never been explained by naturalists.

As to this being an objective conclusion reached by nonbelievers, well, there’s no evidence, no suggestion beyond the human propensity for storytelling that any other reason exists than “just because”. Humans are notorious for making up stories and inventing purposes to give subjective meaning to our actions - stories about gods and other supernatural phenomena are, considered in a coldly objective manner, nothing more than an extension of our subjective desire for significance in a world that clearly does not - indeed, cannot - care about our welfare.

How about the subjective desire for non-significance which give you a carte blanche to indulge your desires?

I don’t know how many other believers experience this, but I actually find it quite liberating to consider that my life has no transcendent, eternal purpose governed by a universal overlord. Why should it? Who do I think I am, really?

I anticipated you! Great minds think alike…

Purpose, as a philosophical concept, is a very human - and very localised - construction.

If purpose is “a very human - and very localised - construction” **all **your physical - **and mental **- activity is beyond your control. Can biological robots reach **their **own conclusions?

Life, just on our planet, Earth, has existed for many, many millennia, and will probably continue to exist after the extinction of humans, without any philosophical concept of purpose. At the end of the “why” questions is, as far as we can presently discern, an acceptance that some things just are, whether these phenomena make sense to us or not.

“acceptance” is certainly a sign of impotence but in your scheme of things “All things just are” is a more consistent view…

 

[JDaniel]

My God! So, you judge me and calle me “hard of heart” simply, it appears, by virtue of your interpretation of “my language”! Amazing! I adore discussing with people, but that means no one should have to hold back their views. Evidently a few “good Catholics” here can’t stand it unless everyone is preachin’ to the choir. That is not the Catholic, intellectual way I was raised with. Sad to see that some people can’t hack a real conversation on interesting and valid topics.

And I must add, I have yet to read a response to my comment. Tells me people are afraid to defend the notion that millions were murdered to enlighten a few German soldiers. Happy to read that anytime someone wants to tackle that one.

Elsa1:

All you have to do is come here in good faith. All you have to do is debate in good faith. (After all, this IS a Catholic forum.)

How you go about doing that is not my problem. I try to debate in good faith, but if I don’t, then I expect to be called down for it. And, from time to time, that happens.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

You didn’t know who the theologian was or even hear his argument, so I can only deduce you now have special powers and divined the “subtlety” of his position out of thin air.

Inocente:

Actually, it was sort of like that: I read it on the internet and I’m connected wirelessly!

The debate was at that well known drunken redneck schoolyard, the Oxford Union. The -]noxious/-] saintly theologian’s name was Richard Swinborne, who also reckons another cheery bright side to the Holocaust was it gave Jews a chance to be courageous and noble. Seriously.

I don’t remember Dawkin’s own arguments, just the obscenity of Swinborne’s. Union debates are not like soccer, you don’t just cheer on your side and boo the other side come what may, you don’t support someone without even hearing his argument just because he’s booked to play against Dawkins.

Read his words, then, read them again; if what you reported are his words. Obviously, I know why people - especially secularists - consider life on Earth paramount to the afterlife. Do you believe, as a professed Christian, that God considers our puny desires ahead of His? Do you think that many of the Jews killed by the Nazis did not make it to Heaven? Don’t you think the thought-numbed Nazis would be worth salvation?

We see things through a tiny hole, by scrunching our thumb and forefinger together. God sees things through an infinite hole. But, we know better than that stupid theologian!

God bless,
jd

 

[Elsa1]

You think what Jesus did on the Cross was meaningless? Or is it that you think we are not called to be like Him? Why did He allow His Crucifixion, do you think? Couldn’t He have had a “better and greater” life by living to old age? =QUOTE]

Of course not. But neither you nor I are Christ. I was taught that Christ died for my sins. He was the sacrifice so humanity would have a better future, literally, in this life and the next. That was His role and mission and He fulfilled it. That is not the role of everyone else on the planet since then. Our role is to live a fruitful life in love and thanksgiving to God.

Ok, so here, I really need to chime in. First of all, one can and usually does experience suffering in life and still manage to smile at some point later. Just look around the world at the massive suffering of people in the thrid world and yet those in the worst of conditions manage a smile and to love. This is part of our make up as human beings, resiliancy!

However, the notion that monks, nuns and frias, for instance “give up pleasures”…come on! History has shown that the religious classes were some of the greatest consumers of “pleasures” the Christian world has known and still are to this day. That does not mean that you do not have some very humble and sincere people in the vocations. But this is, historically speaking, an exception and not a rule. I can elaborate on that if you wish.

Mother Theresa? Not the best example to cite either. Mother Theresa by all accounts was obsessed with suffering, provided it was not her own! I can elaborate on that as well if you like.

Little Saint Therese died at what, 24 years old? She was a little girl when she took the veil and knew nothing of life. Sweet and lovely and perhaps even a mystic in her own way, I grant you. But her suffering was not mystical. It was the result of disease and did not do anyone else any good that I can see.

Have you heard the latest Papal decree regarding Purgatory? Just in 2011 the Pope essentially redefined the nature of Purgatory which equates to destroying the notion you are referring to. That goes for “Limbo” too.

Suffering is not good. It is bad. If you suffer due to circumstances of life and still manage happiness, that is fabulous and should be applauded. But suffering for the sake of suffering to use a “divine money”…no, that is self destruction and in my view a sin against the Creator who made you for “abundance”.

“You shall have life and have it more abundantly.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Alright, so here’s the questions again in a nutshell: What is purpose, and why ascribe it to anything? Obviously any perspectives are allowed but I’d at least like to get some Theist/Christian/Catholic viewpoints on this as the question is ultimately directed to them.

Purpose is an end goal or intent. You would ascribe a purpose to something if you have an end goal or intent that can be served by something (the purpose of this pidgeon is to deliver messages) or because you are trying to understand or reverse engineer something to get an understanding for what some one else was doing or why the person was doing it.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

An excellent question!
According to science everything has a physical cause and purpose is a superfluous concept.

Depends on the science. That viewpoint doesn’t fit in well with the behavioural sciences (psychology, sociology, ethology,…). Might work in physics or chemistry though.

 

[tonyrey]

According to science everything has a physical cause and purpose is a superfluous concept.

According to naturalists/physicalists/materialists all things including persons behave according to the laws of nature like cogs in a machine.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Julia Mae;9877430:

You think what Jesus did on the Cross was meaningless? Or is it that you think we are not called to be like Him? Why did He allow His Crucifixion, do you think? Couldn’t He have had a “better and greater” life by living to old age?

Of course not. But neither you nor I are Christ. I was taught that Christ died for my sins. He was the sacrifice so humanity would have a better future, literally, in this life and the next. That was His role and mission and He fulfilled it. That is not the role of everyone else on the planet since then. Our role is to live a fruitful life in love and thanksgiving to God.

Here’s the vocation of all humanity from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1877 The vocation of humanity is to show forth the image of God and to be transformed into the image of the Father’s only Son…

So, actually, yes, we are Christ on earth, in a very real sense, or, we should be. We are His hands and feet, and He told us to do as He did, love as He did, as He said: “Love one another as I have loved you.” Jesus came to do more than die. Jesus came to explain to us, to show us by His Own life among us, the Way. Our job is to follow Him.

That’s free will. Do you ever a sacrifice anything for anyone else? Have you ever by-passed something you wanted to give something to another? Do you ever give to a charity? Do you only do that when every possible desire you have to fulfill your own happiness has been met?

This is a wonderful topic so please allow me answer your questions one by one. Most certainly, I have a do make sacrifices for others. But understand that that is not the same thing as being a sacrificial animal. I have always viewed the sacrificial animal in a Christian context. That is to say, Christ warned of vain offerings. And that is precisely what a sacrificial animal is, a vain offering. If I sacrifice for someone or, say, some cause I love and am dedicated to, it is not really a sacrifice because I am willing and happy to do it.

Precisely. Yet, you still put others ahead of you, you do without (suffer and sacrifice) for those you love. The difference between a sacrificial animal and a person making a choice to sacrifice is just that: we have a choice. That’s what makes it powerful. It’s our will to mortify our flesh by doing with less than what we want for the benefit of another that creates the Light God uses to benefit others. .

I put the needs of those I love before my own because it is my moral responsibility to do so…

I bet you don’t. I bet you do it because out of the love you have for them, it gives you joy to do so. You said that, you are happy to do so.

However, imagine if everyone did this to the extreme. Soon you would be of no use to anyone because you would have sacrificed yourself out of existance, literally!

I don’t know that everyone is called to do it to the extreme. But if we did, we couldn’t possibly sacrifice ourselves out of existence. We could only sacrifice ourselves into Heaven. Which is a pretty good outcome and sort of the whole point to being here!

Again, I am not a suicidalist who believes that my own life and existance have no value but everyone else’s someone does.

Your existence, like everyone’s, is of enormous value. But like the talents that can earn interest for the Master, only if we invest our lives here according to the Will of our Father will any value be gained from our lives.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Those who recognize the call to a suffering life for Christ, are not miserable, they are people filled with joy. Saint Francis, Saint Faustina, Saint Therese, Mother Teresa, Padre Pio. Monks and nuns and friars… people willing to give up pleasures and make sacrifices for the benefit of others.

Ok, so here, I really need to chime in. First of all, one can and usually does experience suffering in life and still manage to smile at some point later.

But I’m not speaking of people who passed through a difficulty and came up smiling. I’m speaking of people who suffered physically, constantly, endlessly, most for almost all their lives and at the same time, lived in joy and peace.

Have you heard the latest Papal decree regarding Purgatory? Just in 2011 the Pope essentially redefined the nature of Purgatory which equates to destroying the notion you are referring to. That goes for “Limbo” too.

How about you post a link for us.

But suffering for the sake of suffering to use a “divine money”…no, that is self destruction and in my view a sin against the Creator who made you for “abundance”.

“You shall have life and have it more abundantly.”

Not exactly:

John, Chapter 10

1 * “Amen, amen, I say to you,a whoever does not enter a sheepfold* through the gate but climbs over elsewhere is a thief and a robber. But whoever enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens it for him, and the sheep hear his voice, as he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has driven out all his own, he walks ahead of them, and the sheep follow him, because they recognize his voice. But they will not follow a stranger; they will run away from him, because they do not recognize the voice of strangers.”

6 Although Jesus used this figure of speech,* they did not realize what he was trying to tell them.

7 * So Jesus said again, “Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the gate for the sheep. * All who came [before me] are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.
I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy;** I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly.**

So, now we have the actual quote. When do we "have life more abundantly? When we “come in and go out.” Come to Jesus and go out (pass on) to Heaven. Jesus never speaks of anyone getting any reward in this world.

The thief is satan who comes to steal your soul. Jesus is the good shepherd who will lead you to life.

Now, it’s obvious to me that you are trolling. I’m not sure you know it yourself. The idea that you can tell anyone here anything about our Saints that we don’t know or haven’t read is completely unrealistic on your part, not to mention insulting.

What you will find on CAF are a lot of intelligent, well-read persons who have had these discussions with those far better equipped than you for the battle.

After you are suspended for the first time and come back, maybe you’d like to learn about the Universal Christian Church of Jesus Christ, better known now as the Catholic Church. Maybe you’d like to learn what it was Jesus and His Apostles actually taught all those years ago that has been retained and treasured through time and brought whole into this day.

One thing we do, is not take bits and pieces of Scripture and string them together to support a teaching Jesus never, ever, gave. Your version of this is completely wrong, it is, in fact, anti-Christian.

Jesus doesn’t want you to be rich.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

According to naturalists/physicalists/materialists all things including persons behave according to the laws of nature like cogs in a machine.

If that is the source of the assertion that “purpose is superfluous” then it may be more appropriate to attribute it to that source instead of science in general. Especially since “purpose” is a major theme in some sciences.

 

[jochoa]

And what is the precise definition of “purpose”, anyway?

You have such brilliant questions, my friend! I would like to share some answers to your questions, and I would like to begin with the definition from Google: Noun: The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Verb: Have as one’s intention or objective.

why ascribe purpose to anything?

In regards to ascribing purpose to living, when one ascribes a purpose in life, one now has a personally objective goal to achieve which objectively has an optimal means to fulfill.

Is purpose necessary derived from things by their nature, or is purpose a subjective concept?

By the nature of life with the capability to reason, there is objective purpose: To experience limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all, including the self.

How do we know that things have purposes at all?

The first evidence of knowing that things have purposes is the Holy Bible. To know this, please consider the following: When trying to solve how to experience limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all, including the self in the earthly world, the teaching of Jesus, especially “embracing the cross” make such amazing sense! The second evidence of knowing that things have purposes is the Catechisms and Doctrines of the Catholic Faith in unity with the Holy Bible. To know this, please consider the following: When trying to solve how a person shares the means to experience limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all, including the self, given the person initially exists in absolute solitude, the Nicene Creed, the Story of Creation: The Holy Bible, the Sacraments, and many other teachings make such amazing sense! Since the authors of these sources do not take personal credit for this Wisdom, and instead claim they are divinely inspired, they serve as proof that God purposed all.

Why must we ascribe a purpose to suffering at all?

It is not that we must, instead it is that we should. The reason we should is because when we ascribe a purpose to suffering, we can suffer with greater peace knowing we are growing closer to the goal of the experience of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all, including the self.

Here’s my line of thinking on this topic: Every day we explain things, whether consciously or not. For instance, if I am hungry, the explanation (or purpose) of my hunger is that I am in need of food. Why do I need food? To continue living. Why do I need to continue living? …etc. Ultimately our daily questions

If you will follow this line of thinking a couple more questions, you will find the purpose of anything done! Please consider the following:

Why do I need to continue living? Because I want to.
Why do I want to? Because it makes me happier. ← And there is half of the general pinnacle purpose of living!
The other half can be resolved by:
Why do I take medicine? Because it gets rid of the pain.
Why do I want get rid of the pain? Because I like peace/lack of distress/freedom from disturbance. ← And there is the other half of the general pinnacle purpose of living!
Why do I like peace? Because I can experience greater happiness with greater peace.

Thank you very much for such excellent food for thought! I look forward to further discussion!

 

[tonyrey]

According to naturalists/physicalists/materialists all things including persons

It is more appropriate to attribute “purpose” to permutations of particles in a scheme of things derived solely from inanimate objects.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It is more appropriate to attribute “purpose” to permutations of particles in a scheme of things derived solely from inanimate objects.

If those are your semantics, go with it!

 

[fhansen]

I’ve been reading and came across a common objection from non-believers that is fundamentally challenging to the Christian notion of suffering. As Christians we ascribe sin to the purpose of suffering; that’s the bare, basic description of it.

However, my concern is this: Why must we ascribe a purpose to suffering at all? When we talk about suffering we usually take for granted the fact that we are applying meaning to it. Taken a step further we might as well ask: why ascribe purpose to anything? Is purpose necessary derived from things by their nature, or is purpose a subjective concept?

From a strictly scientific level I suppose we could link “purpose” to activity at the quantum level, then the atomic, then molecular, and upwards gradually into the macrocosm of human existence and daily life. Then again, there is always the question of “why” matter, scientific laws, etc. exist at all. Non-believers would suggest that there is no ultimate “why” (although I wonder how they came to this “objective” conclusion).

Alright, so here’s the questions again in a nutshell: What is purpose, and why ascribe it to anything? Obviously any perspectives are allowed but I’d at least like to get some Theist/Christian/Catholic viewpoints on this as the question is ultimately directed to them.

In this universe effects don’t happen without causes and, in our own experience, human driven causes don’t happen without intention.