Sour grapes... said the fox

[Serious]

You are right. And the whole thing about suffering is that it is its very pointlessness which makes it worse. If you go the dentist, and experience pain for a reason (to fix a toothache), you would not normally refer to it as ‘suffering’.

At least we have partial agreement. Something to be cherished.

Serious, I think you premise is wrong, in that you are assuming that suffering comes from God. It doesn’t it comes from sin, or the Devil. Evil is by definition that which causes suffering. The cause of suffering is, by definition, evil- which you can call either sin or the Devil. God redeems us from suffering, He does not create it.

There is no difference between “actively creating” and “passively allowing/condoning” suffering. If God would have a desk, there would be a sign on it: “The buck stops here”. With absolute power comes absolute responsibility. According to the christian belief, God created the devil, knowing full well that the devil will turn into “evil”. God also had the freedom NOT to create the devil, but volitionally did anyhow. Therefore the ultimate responsibility lies with God. You see, with stipulating “omniscince” you painted poor God into a corner.

The Catechism says the source of evil is a ‘mystery’. It isn’t God.

The catechism is not an authority for me.

 

[Qoeleth]

At least we have partial agreement. Something to be cherished.

There is no difference between “actively creating” and “passively allowing/condoning” suffering. If God would have a desk, there would be a sign on it: “The buck stops here”. With absolute power comes absolute responsibility. According to the christian belief, God created the devil, knowing full well that the devil will turn into “evil”. God also had the freedom NOT to create the devil, but volitionally did anyhow. Therefore the ultimate responsibility lies with God. You see, with stipulating “omniscince” you painted poor God into a corner.

The catechism is not an authority for me.

Jesus is the perfect image of God. Did Jesus have absolute power?

Who stipulated omniscience and omnipotence? Both terms belong only to purely metaphoric language. God is only omnipotent in the same way that Love is omnipotent. Is it true to say ‘Love conquers all?’ In the same way that that statement is true (and only in that way), is it true to say ‘God is omnipotent’.

Evil and suffering are contrary to the will of God, which is Love alone. He does not permit it, passivley or otherwise. On the contrary, He fought against it as Jesus, and we (His hands and feet in the world) hopefully also fight against.

The Christian God is Jesus, not Zeus!

The buck does not stop with God in Heaven- the buck stops here with us on earth. That is the whole point of the Incarnation.

 

[Serious]

Evil and suffering are contrary to the will of God, which is Love alone. He does not permit it, passivley or otherwise. On the contrary, He fought against it as Jesus, and we (His hands and feet in the world) hopefully also fight against.

Well, then God is impotent. Works for me.

 

[grannymh]

At least we have partial agreement. Something to be cherished.

There is no difference between “actively creating” and “passively allowing/condoning” suffering. If God would have a desk, there would be a sign on it: “The buck stops here”. With absolute power comes absolute responsibility. According to the christian belief, God created the devil, knowing full well that the devil will turn into “evil”. God also had the freedom NOT to create the devil, but volitionally did anyhow. Therefore the ultimate responsibility lies with God. You see, with stipulating “omniscince” you painted poor God into a corner.

The catechism is not an authority for me.

You referred to "the christian belief " without specifying a particular religion.

May I respectfully point out that Catholicism differs from the generic chrisitan belief which can exist outside of a particular religion. The idea that God created the devil is not part of Catholic teaching. What is part of Catholic teaching is that God created spiritual beings, known as angels, who were endowed with free will.

While the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not an authority for you – which is certainly o.k. – it is a useful tool for those who would like to know the differences between Catholicism and other Christian religions.

 

[someperson555]

Looking at those threads dealing with pain, there are invariably a few people who will consider pain and suffering a positive thing. Their argument is: “without pain how could we value our health?” In other words: “it is better to be sick and recover, than to be healthy all the time”, or “it is better to go hungry and have your fill, then never be hungry at all”. Relativism at its finest. They say that they do not appreciate good for its own value, they appreciate it as a contrast to the bad.

Usually they scorn the “utopia” of no pain, no misery, no hunger, no sickness… I wonder how honest - to themselves - these people are? Do they seek pain, just so the cessation of pain would be appreciated more? Do they grab a hammer and smack their own thumb, just because it feels “so good”, when they stop it? I sincerely doubt it.

What they try to do, is rationalize the existence of pain and suffering. Since the utopia seems to be out of reach, they pretend that it would not be good anyhow. And they also assert that having all the human monsters, criminals, murderers, rapists is preferable then getting rid of them. If there would be a medical option to change those criminals to decent fellows, these people would protest, because they think that the criminals’ “free will” is somehow “valuable”.

“Sour grapes”… said the fox. Should have said: “hypocrisy”.

 

[Serious]

You referred to "the christian belief " without specifying a particular religion.

May I respectfully point out that Catholicism differs from the generic chrisitan belief which can exist outside of a particular religion. The idea that God created the devil is not part of Catholic teaching. What is part of Catholic teaching is that God created spiritual beings, known as angels, who were endowed with free will.

Sorry, the distinction is not relevant. It is the catholic belief, that God is omniscient, that God created those angels, and therefore God knew that some of them will turn against him. It is also a catholic teaching that God was under no obligation to create anyone. As such whether there is an explicit teaching that God created the Devil or this concept is simply a logical corollary of official teachings is not relevant.

While the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not an authority for you – which is certainly o.k. – it is a useful tool for those who would like to know the differences between Catholicism and other Christian religions.

If and when there is a real difference, yes it is useful to know. But in this case there is no real difference.

 

[grannymh]

Sorry, the distinction is not relevant. It is the catholic belief, that God is omniscient, that God created those angels, and therefore God knew that some of them will turn against him. It is also a catholic teaching that God was under no obligation to create anyone. As such whether there is an explicit teaching that God created the Devil or this concept is simply a logical corollary of official teachings is not relevant.

I beg to differ. The distinction between Catholicism and other belief systems, including non-theism which is based in a material/physical system of beliefs about one’s environment, is certainly relevant; otherwise, you are talking to a mirror. That is certainly o.k. if you wish to have a one-person conversation.

If and when there is a real difference, yes it is useful to know. But in this case there is no real difference.

If you wish to have a one-person conversation with only your opinions allowed, go ahead. Your choice is certainly o.k. with me.

 

[Serious]

I beg to differ. The distinction between Catholicism and other belief systems, including non-theism which is based in a material/physical system of beliefs about one’s environment, is certainly relevant; otherwise, you are talking to a mirror.

You misunderstood me. I said that it does not matter if “X” is an “explicit” teaching, or “X” is a logical corollary of the official teachings.

 

[grannymh]

You misunderstood me. I said that it does not matter if “X” is an “explicit” teaching, or “X” is a logical corollary of the official teachings.

It matters if either your “X” is correct or if your other “X” is correct when either or both “X’s” are compared with Catholicism.

The ball is in your court if you wish a one-person discussion or a two-person discussion which allows more than one interpretation of "X.
Note that it is my intention to lay the Catholic position on the table along with positions presented by others. Everyone is free to make their own decisions about what is presented.

 

[Qoeleth]

Well, then God is impotent. Works for me.

God stumbled under the Cross on the way to Calvary. God is present today in the hungry, the thirsty, the prisoner, the stranger. That is why it is up to us. “God has no hands but yours.”

Is love impotent? Or is it omnipotent? Perhaps the answer to that question is up to us…

 

[adrift]

Yes, this is the redemptive view. I reject it.

It is not enough to state you reject it but to give a reasoned account of why you reject it.

 

[robwar]

Serious,
If you reject God why did you join a Catholic forum such as this? No matter what the others have brought up to your original posts, you totally reject the points. I am not sure what you are serious about but I am praying for you. You create straw men only to knock them down. Are you truly serious about you questions about God and understanding suffering or are you just trying to score debate points against religious Catholics? Seriously, I am praying for you.

 

[Serious]

It is not enough to state you reject it but to give a reasoned account of why you reject it.

It is obvious. If you wish to offer up your OWN suffering, that is your prerogative. If you wish to follow those people from the Philippines who have themselves crucified, be my guest. Go and suffer as much as you want. But do not try to extrapolate this sick attitude onto others. Especially if you run to the dentist when you have nice, excruciating toothache, or if you take an aspirin for your headache. Because if you do, then you are a hypocrite.

 

[Serious]

If you reject God why did you join a Catholic forum such as this?

Two reasons. To learn how other people think and reason. That is one. The other one is to teach a little. The amount of mental anguish and suffering expressed on the Moral Theology forum is simply heartbreaking. And for what? Some simple activities which do not hurt anyone, which are biologically useful.

No matter what the others have brought up to your original posts, you totally reject the points.

If and when there are rational arguments, I accept them. Too bad that they only happen once in a blue moon.

Seriously, I am praying for you.

Very kind, and thank you.

 

[grannymh]

Two reasons.

I have the same two reasons.

To learn how other people think and reason. That is one.

That to me, explains why I was having trouble with this thread. To me, the OP was directed to various groups of people and not to the issue of suffering itself. Yet, suffering itself was part of the OP.

The other one is to teach a little.

Yes, I would like to teach what I am learning.

The amount of mental anguish and suffering expressed on the Moral Theology forum is simply heartbreaking. And for what? Some simple activities which do not hurt anyone, which are biologically useful.

Since Moral Theology forum is not one I frequent, I will accept your description of it because I have seen some heartbreaking posts here.

If and when there are rational arguments, I accept them. Too bad that they only happen once in a blue moon.

Rational arguments are a dime a dozen. What differentiates them are some underlying assumptions and/or philosophies, worldviews, and methods.

If you do wish to respond to my post 49, please do so–take your time.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[Serious]

Rational arguments are a dime a dozen.

Logical arguments are dime a dozen. Rational ones are not. Here is a logical argument:

1. All elephants can play the piano.
2. Jumbo is an elephant.
3. Therefore Jumbo can play the piano.

Logical, as it comes. Also irrational.

What differentiates them are some underlying assumptions and/or philosophies, worldviews, and methods.

You got that right. A perfectly logical argument becomes irrational if the axioms it is based upon are incorrect or nonsensical. There is something that makes conversations very difficult. For an atheist “God’s goodness” is - at best - a hypothesis. For a believer “God’s goodness” is an axiom.

When we examine reality, there is no visible, testable, obvious evidence for God’s goodness - which means that the hypothesis of God’s goodness is not supported. That does not bother the believer. When the evidence does not support the hypothesis, it will be either denied or explained away. Sometimes the denial becomes frighteningly irrational. There are quite a few people who say that pain and suffering is one of the greatest gifts from God - because (they say) it has redemptive value. Now I would bet dollars to pennies that these people run to the doctors to alleviate their pain. What do you call their behavior? I call it hypocritical.

Suffice it to say that there was never a rational argument for the “problem of evil”. Logical, maybe, rational never.

As to your post #49. It is the catholic teaching that God created the angels. It is also the catholic teaching that God knew that some of them will “fall” and he knew it before he created them. It is also a catholic teaching that God did the creation out of his free will, which means that God had the option of NOT creating either some or all of those angels who WILL fall.

Therefore the logical and RATIONAL conclusion is that God created the Devil, and that conclusion is also supported by Isaiah 45:7
"I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these things. "

So whether the church explicitly teaches that God created the devil or not, is simply irrelevant.

 

[grannymh]

Logical arguments are dime a dozen. Rational ones are not. Here is a logical argument:

1. All elephants can play the piano.
2. Jumbo is an elephant.
3. Therefore Jumbo can play the piano.

Logical, as it comes. Also irrational.

You got that right. A perfectly logical argument becomes irrational if the axioms it is based upon are incorrect or nonsensical. There is something that makes conversations very difficult. For an atheist “God’s goodness” is - at best - a hypothesis. For a believer “God’s goodness” is an axiom.

When we examine reality, there is no visible, testable, obvious evidence for God’s goodness - which means that the hypothesis of God’s goodness is not supported. That does not bother the believer. When the evidence does not support the hypothesis, it will be either denied or explained away. Sometimes the denial becomes frighteningly irrational. There are quite a few people who say that pain and suffering is one of the greatest gifts from God - because (they say) it has redemptive value. Now I would bet dollars to pennies that these people run to the doctors to alleviate their pain. What do you call their behavior? I call it hypocritical.

Suffice it to say that there was never a rational argument for the “problem of evil”. Logical, maybe, rational never.

As to your post #49. It is the catholic teaching that God created the angels. It is also the catholic teaching that God knew that some of them will “fall” and he knew it before he created them. It is also a catholic teaching that God did the creation out of his free will, which means that God had the option of NOT creating either some or all of those angels who WILL fall.

Therefore the logical and RATIONAL conclusion is that God created the Devil, and that conclusion is also supported by Isaiah 45:7
"I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these things. "

So whether the church explicitly teaches that God created the devil or not, is simply irrelevant.

Some quick comments.

I do not believe that “All elephants can play the piano.” is a logical statement to begin with. Unless, logical means that lies can be used.

Regarding the Catholic teaching that God created whatever etc. The true rational approach is to consider what it means to have a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions as the Creator God. Eliminating the correct basis for a rational approach to creation is one of the reasons that some people, through vocabulary and a shallow understanding of Catholic teaching, are trying to turn God into a human just like their personal preferences.

Regarding rational thinking per se. From what I have observed, there are many people who use subjective thinking as the norm which throws any type of doctrinal authority out the window.

Regarding “When we examine reality, there is no visible, testable, obvious evidence for God’s goodness - which means that the hypothesis of God’s goodness is not supported.” What this really means is that the examiner of reality is basing her or his examination of reality on some form of materialism philosophy. God is not a materialism being.

People who have faith in God have gone beyond the chains of materialism to the reality of the spiritual domain.

Regarding my post 49, I am withdrawing the invitation.

I wish you many blessings in your journey. You and the rest of us are in my prayers.

 

[Serious]

I do not believe that “All elephants can play the piano.” is a logical statement to begin with. Unless, logical means that lies can be used.

It does not have to be. It is a stipulated statement. IF it is true, THEN Jumbo can play the piano - that is a logically correct line of thought. Since we all know that the stipulated statement is actually false, the result is not logically SOUND (but still logically VALID).

Regarding the Catholic teaching that God created whatever etc. The true rational approach is to consider what it means to have a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions as the Creator God. Eliminating the correct basis for a rational approach to creation is one of the reasons that some people, through vocabulary and a shallow understanding of Catholic teaching, are trying to turn God into a human just like their personal preferences.

You have two choices: you can say that we cannot say ANYTHING about God, or you can say that we can say SOME things about God. If you allow for the second possibility, then anything that is a logical corollary is also a vaild observation.

Regarding rational thinking per se. From what I have observed, there are many people who use subjective thinking as the norm which throws any type of doctrinal authority out the window.

Why would it be subjective? And doctrinal authority means nothing to non-catholics.

Regarding “When we examine reality, there is no visible, testable, obvious evidence for God’s goodness - which means that the hypothesis of God’s goodness is not supported.” What this really means is that the examiner of reality is basing her or his examination of reality on some form of materialism philosophy. God is not a materialism being.

This is where you made a mistake. God is allegedly interfering with the physical reality. If that is the case we can “catch God red-handed” in the interface.

People who have faith in God have gone beyond the chains of materialism to the reality of the spiritual domain.

And again, there is absolutely no evidence that there is such a thing as “spiritual domain” (whatever it might be).

I wish you many blessings in your journey. You and the rest of us are in my prayers.

Very kind of you. Thanks for your consideration.

 

[robwar]

Two reasons. To learn how other people think and reason. That is one. The other one is to teach a little. The amount of mental anguish and suffering expressed on the Moral Theology forum is simply heartbreaking. And for what? Some simple activities which do not hurt anyone, which are biologically useful.

If and when there are rational arguments, I accept them. Too bad that they only happen once in a blue moon.

Very kind, and thank you.

I am not sure if this is the correct forum for you to “teach”. You are welcome to learn but the point to “teach” is not rational at all in a forum that is about the Catholic faith and for a majority of those of us on this are more interested in learning about our faith not learning from someone who rejects religion or at least seems to. Arguments between opposite views such as yours (rejection of God and faith) and those who believe really don’t go anywhere. I am not going to change your mind and inspite of what think you are “teaching” you are not going to change anyone else’s mind either. The struggle of suffering can’t be boiled down to simple platitudes. God gives us free will and with it will come suffering which results from the bad choices people make. There are extreme views in Christianity about suffering. One extreme is the faith/prosperity heresy which teach that we should never suffer and if you are then you had the wrong confession or you didn’t have the faith etc. If you think the Catholic view is sick, this is sicker. The other extreme would be at the Christian Science end of mind over matter. The Catholic view is that there are many reason for suffering but we can use suffering for our betterment no matter what the cause.
This is the healthier approach to life and faith. I am still praying for you. Only you can change your thinking and mind. I won’t be able to change that for you by arguing but I do believe my prayers for you can.

 

[Serious]

I am not sure if this is the correct forum for you to “teach”. You are welcome to learn but the point to “teach” is not rational at all in a forum that is about the Catholic faith and for a majority of those of us on this are more interested in learning about our faith not learning from someone who rejects religion or at least seems to.

Since this is not the apologetics forum, rather the philosophy one, I see nothing wrong to point out the illogical and irrational aspects of religion.

Arguments between opposite views such as yours (rejection of God and faith) and those who believe really don’t go anywhere. I am not going to change your mind and inspite of what think you are “teaching” you are not going to change anyone else’s mind either.

Probably not for those whose faith has became so rigid and calcified that their reply is always: “My mind is made up, do not confuse me with facts”. But there are still some who did not throw away their critical skills and their reason.

The struggle of suffering can’t be boiled down to simple platitudes. God gives us free will and with it will come suffering which results from the bad choices people make.

That is a platitude, all right. And an incorrect one, too, since the existence of free will is only a prerequisite for the possibility of evil, but not for the actuality of it.

There are extreme views in Christianity about suffering. One extreme is the faith/prosperity heresy which teach that we should never suffer and if you are then you had the wrong confession or you didn’t have the faith etc. If you think the Catholic view is sick, this is sicker. The other extreme would be at the Christian Science end of mind over matter. The Catholic view is that there are many reason for suffering but we can use suffering for our betterment no matter what the cause.

In some cases that is undoubtedly true. But the “problem of evil” is much more complicated than that. It needs to explain ALL the pain and suffering, not just a few, carefully selected ones.

This is the healthier approach to life and faith. I am still praying for you. Only you can change your thinking and mind. I won’t be able to change that for you by arguing but I do believe my prayers for you can.

Thank you again. I wish the best for you.