SPLIT: on suffering

[ateista]

I’d just like to add a question to yours. Why doesn’t God prevent the victim from suffering during the experience? That wouldn’t interfere with the free will of the torturer, but would be a real blessing to the poor victim. Why doesn’t God do that, if he cares so much? Why not just take away the pain?

Good point!

Though I am afraid some people would actually contend that. There was one instance (a long time ago) when a poster actually “doubted” that the animals perishing in a wildfire would experience pain…

 

[ateista]

One definition of torture is to inflict extreme distress or anguish upon a person.

I have moments of extreme distress (for a number of reasons). However, they are not inflicted upon me by God. Some are the result of living in a physical world, some are the results of other people’s behaviour and some are a result of my own behaviour and thoughts.

There is no difference between “personally inflicting” or “allowing” such pains.

As I have said on another thread, despite periods of real anguish I am glad to be alive and to have the opportunity of experiencing this world (and hopefully the next). I trust that the good will (and does) outweigh the bad and that all is for the good.

Sure, that is usually a reasonable hope. But we are talking about all the cases, even the extreme ones. Don’t forget, no one denies that there are instances of pain and suffering that are necessary. The question at hand is different:

Are all instances of pain and suffering “necessary”? And the word “necessary” must be understood as a “logical prerequisite” to bring forth some greater good, which cannot be done (God’s omnipotence notwithstanding).

Logically, if you believe that suffering is inevitable and outweighs the good, and that there is no God, then why would you continue to live? If this world is so terrible then why have children?

Except very few people believe that, and those who do - many times they do escape into suicide.

Seriously, I’m not sure how anyone endures this world and its suffering with either a belief that God is ‘evil’ or that God does not exist. What good do you see if all is so terrible and/or we’re ruled by an unfeeling monster?

Because not all is “bad” for all people. The average person has a decent life, some have it very good, and some have it very bad. The problem is not with the average, it is with the extreme.

To turn your question around: I cannot understand how can believers deny the existence of gratuitous pain and suffering. How can they close their eyes to all the horrible acts of evil persons, and the random pain and suffering that happens in natural disasters?

 

[Fran65]

[How can they close their eyes to all the horrible acts of evil persons, and the random pain and suffering that happens in natural disasters?

Believe me, my eyes (my own experience) and those of other believers around me are not closed. We work to amelioriate suffering and to prevent it where possible.

In addition, we have our belief that all is for the good - no matter how bad it seems to human eyes; and that all will be put right in the end.

It is a hope that atheists do not share. What I am interested in is why atheists are so interested in spreading their hopelessness and despair?
[/quote]

 

[ateista]

Believe me, my eyes (my own experience) and those of other believers around me are not closed. We work to amelioriate suffering and to prevent it where possible.

Now the question is: “why do you do that”? If, as you say in your next sentence, you believe that all those “seemingly bad” things are necessary to bring forth some greater good, then why do you try to prevent that greater good from happening, when you interfere?

In addition, we have our belief that all is for the good - no matter how bad it seems to human eyes; and that all will be put right in the end.

So, don’t interfere, and allow the greater good to happen.

It is a hope that atheists do not share. What I am interested in is why atheists are so interested in spreading their hopelessness and despair?

Except there is no hopelessness and there is no despair. There is the reality, its acceptance, and there is the desire and attempt to fix it. Since atheists are not under the “illusion” that the seemingly bad things are “for the best”, we can rightly fight against them.

Let me summarize: “You say that all the ‘seemingly’ bad things are actually for the best, that those ‘seemingly bad’ things are necessary for God to achieve some greater good”. Then you turn around and say that you try to ameliorate those ‘seemingly bad’ things.

Which one is it?

Are those ‘seemingly bad’ things ‘really’ bad, and therefore good people should fight against them, or are they ‘sheep in wolf’s clothings’ (not the other way round!), not just not really bad, but actually good (even though we cannot know why) and then it is counterproductive to fight against them and attempt to frustrate God’s plan to use them?

How do you plan to solve this dilemma?

 

[Fran65]

Sufferiing is suffering, whether it is for the good or not. As Catholics (or people) we have a responsibility to reduce or prevent suffering where we can. We cannot prevent earthquakes happening, but we can deal with the resultant suffering. Likewise for the behaviour of others and many diseases.

The fact that good can come out of suffering does not mean that we should suffer or encourage suffering or not alleviate suffering in others. Perhaps some of the good that comes out of suffering is the intervention by others and the putting of others first.

We, as humans can only do our best and that is what we try to do.

You seem to not see the distinction between suffering being good and good *coming out * of suffering. They are two different things.

Suffering is inevitable. Our response is not.

 

[ateista]

Sufferiing is suffering, whether it is for the good or not. As Catholics (or people) we have a responsibility to reduce or prevent suffering where we can. We cannot prevent earthquakes happening, but we can deal with the resultant suffering. Likewise for the behaviour of others and many diseases.

That does not asnwer my question. You say that we have the responsibility to try and reduce or prevent suffering if and when we can. Of course, I agree with you. The question is “why” should we do that?

As an atheist, my answer is simple: suffering is a negative phenomenon. As social beings it is our advantage to prevent or minimize it, so if we (personally) experience it, others will come to our aid and help us.

But what is your reason to do that?

The fact that good can come out of suffering does not mean that we should suffer or encourage suffering or not alleviate suffering in others.

That is not the question again. Catholics (at least those ones who expressed their views) asserted that all sufferings (not just some) have some unspecified greater good coming out from them.

If, presumably, all sufferings have a beneficial corollary attached to them, then it is foolish to prevent or minimize the suffering, since by virtue of preventing or minimizing them we also prevent the following “greater” good, which would ensue.

Perhaps some of the good that comes out of suffering is the intervention by others and the putting of others first.

So it is “good” to be stuck in a disaster, because others might be encouraged to help? I wonder, if you have ever posted that question to the survivors? Do you really think that they “cherish” the idea that God allowed the demise of their families, just so that others will come and lend a helping hand? I strongly suspect that their answer would not be “charitable”. Maybe even your life would be in jeopardy if you dared to ask that question.

Obviously I find it reprehensible that God would “use” these human beings to attempt to coax a decent behavior from the rest of us.

We, as humans can only do our best and that is what we try to do.

So why does not the same principle apply to God?

You seem to not see the distinction between suffering being good and good *coming out * of suffering. They are two different things.

Try to explain just what “good” can come out from allowing a psychopath to rape and torture someone to death? Or is that question yet another one of those famous “mysteries” that are always invoked when presented with an unanswerable question?

Suffering is inevitable. Our response is not.

Our suffering is not always inevitable. As knowledge and technology grows, we can predict and prevent some sufferings. As medical science advances, we can treat pain better and more efficiently. There is no more “biting the bullet” when a painful operation happens, we have effective ways and means to prevent and treat pains.

What was “inevitable” suffering yesteday is not necessarily inevitable today.

 

[Sarpedon]

This is a generic type of remark. I asked about the specific problem, namely if you can come up with anything that would justify to allow a psychopath to use another human being for the sole purpose of deriving pleasure from the pain, torture and degradation of another human being.

Of course. If allowing that person to be used results in a better state for the victim, I would certainly allow it. Suppose that interfering will only cause more emotional damage for the victim. I would not interfere because it would only make the situation worse. For God, interfering will often make the situation worse, because self-love can grow out of comfort.

Remember that heaven is the best thing possible for us. It would be better to suffer for a lifetime if that suffering brought about salvation than to live a lifetime of comfort and end up with eternal separation.

The reason suffering is so effective in bringing us to salvation is the way that it demands that we choose selflessness or self-love. A person suffering can begin to turn inward and wallow in the pain or turn outward and endure the pain for others. Suffering is a very practical way of bringing the issue of God and selflessness into focus, and demanding a decision that could be delayed too long. This will be expounded on in the next post about the CS Lewis quote.

God allows us to suffer so that we have to make the choice, and tries everything He can to encourage us to make the right choice.

Except that there is no “opting out”. The “reward” for suicide is eternal torture. God does not give us an option whether one wishes to be created or not.

It may not be logically possible to choose to be uncreated in timeless eternity since such a choice would be exercising the fundamental quality of humanity. If so, any choice to be uncreated would need to be made while alive. Of course, if God fulfilled such a request there would be no second chance for the person. Since such a request would be so bizarre and unusual, God would probably want to give them a second chance and refrain from fulfilling it.

Suppose someone ran up to you heartbroken by a breakup and demanded that you shoot him or her immediately. Would you immediately shoot the person, or give him or her time to think it over? Such a request would be so crazy that the person is probably out of his or her mind.

Ah, but the question is: do you agree with it? indeed if one realizes that God cannot know the unknowable, then God is pretty much off the hook. But are you willing to “pay” this price?

I haven’t decided personally, because I have done little research on the subject. I doubt there has been an infallible pronouncement either way.

Even if he does, it is few and far between. And there is not one documented case of God reaching down and rescuing a tortured victim.

Documentation goes back about 5,000 years or so in Europe, less for other parts of the world. Humanity has probably been around a bit longer than that. How do you know such events have not occured?

Anyway, God would not have to come down in a great showy display. It would be sufficient to slightly alter the physcial circumstances to avoid death- such as directing the bullet that hit Pope John Paul II.

Everytime you see a bad result, you blame God for not helping. What do you think when you see a close call? What is God doing there?

Maybe close calls are the events where God intervened, and the real thing is where God, in His wisdom, refrained from intervening. Statistically, which is greater- close calls or actual events? Unless you know this statistic, you do not know how often God intervenes.

So be it… “The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.” Right? Even if that comes at the expense of human dignity? I thought that not even God can use humans while violating their human dignity… and there not a whole lot more undignifying than being used by a sick psychopath.

Lets look at our choices.

1. Allow God to work through you, and have a relationship with God for eternity.
2. Refuse to allow God to work through you, and don’t have a relationship with Him.

 

[Sarpedon]

First: obviously I accept that not all pain pain and suffering can be declared gratuitous, there are some that can be deemed beneficial. You, on the other hand deny that there is even one instance of “gratuitous” pain, you declare that all pain and suffering we experience is for some unspecified greater good, at the discretion of God, who knows best. (The word “you” is meant in general form, not you, specifically.)

Now, do you actually practice what you preach? I seriously doubt it. If you are in pain, do you run to the doctor, to alleviate that pain? Or do you stay at home, “cherishing” the thought that the Lord “mysteriously” works through your pain?

Ahh, fatalism… no, we are not fatalists

If I am in pain, I go to the doctor to try and alleviate the pain. If God wants me to suffer for my own good, then He will prevent the doctor from healing me. This is at God’s discretion alone. If I stayed home as you said, I would actually be taking the matter into my own hands and trying to ursurp it from God. We must always strive to alleviate pain for everyone, because we can not judge what people need.

You said: “so be it”. But I would bet anything that you just say that, and do not follow it yourself. It is always the arrogance of the healthy people, who - oh so heroically - endure the pain and suffering of others.

Not so.

Do you know where the Catholic faith is most vibrant? Africa and South America.

The two continents with the greatest sufferings are also the most Catholic.

Europe, on the other hand, is almost spiritually dead. Even though most sufferings have been driven away by development, people have lost the faith.

I don’t think this is a coincedence. The two continents with the greatest sufferings are also the most religious. Since they are the most religious, it stands to reason that more people will choose salvation there. If so, the salvation is the greatest where the suffering is the highest.

If you were God, and wanted to save as many people as possible, what would you make of this situation?

And if you assert that there is no “unnecessary” or “gratuitous” pain out there, then you actually condone each and every piece of torture, rape, genocide, Holocaust (you name it) that happens in the world, after all none of them is “unnecessary”, all of them are just God’s tools to bring forth some greater good (which cannot be achieved by using other means).

If you really mean this, you should go and participate. If you do all good works, that is fine. However, if you do some horrific deeds, that is even better! After all you are only God’s tool, who “uses” you for fabricating some unspecified “greater” good.

God wants to save humanity. He is not able to do this by encouraging sinful acts. If people decide to sin anyway, God might as well take advantage of the bad situation to bring some good out of it. At the same time, to directly sin in order to encourage holiness is completely counterintuitive.

God makes the best out of bad situations, but He does not cause nor encourage the bad situations in the first place. To cause or encourage a bad situation in order to bring about a good situation does not work in the context of objective morality.

That is the logical corollary of denying the existence of “unnecessary” pain. I was under the impression that the Catholic Church advocates: “the end does not justify the means”. Obviously you hold a different opinion.

No, not at all. The “means” God is using are not the sinful, evil acts themselves. God may use the suffering that results from the act as a means, but not the sin itself. Therefore, God is not using evil means, only taking advantage of the situation and creating separate good means where there were only bad means before.

 

[Sarpedon]

In peace we can make many of them ignore good and evil entirely; in danger, the issue is forced upon them in a guise to which even we cannot blind them. There is here a cruel dilemma before us. If we promoted justice and charity among men, we should be playing directly into the Enemy’s hands; but if we guide them to the opposite behaviour, this sooner or later produces (for He permits it to produce) a war or a revolution, and the undisguisable issue of cowardice or courage awakes thousands of men from moral stupor. This, indeed, is probably one of the Enemy’s motives for creating a dangerous world-a world in which moral issues really come to the point. He sees as well as you do that courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means, at the point of highest reality. A chastity or honesty, or mercy, which yields to danger will be chaste or honest or merciful only on conditions. Pilate was merciful till it became risky.

The above quote is from C.S. Lewis in “The Screwtape Letters.” The narrator of the passage is an older demon, Screwtape, giving advice to a younger demon, Wormtongue (not to be confused with the teacher of the same name in Calvin and Hobbes)

Screwtape says that they are faced with a terrible problem. If they encourage good acts, then they play right into the Enemy’s (God) plan. On the other hand, if they encourage bad acts, then they run the risk of starting a war.

Although the demons would be delighted by the evil of violence, there is a terrible risk. If a war develops, thousands of people will awaken from moral slumber. Faced with the reality of death and the reality of evil, they will be forced to make a choice. Many will choose God, to the demons’ disgust.

This is the great problem for the demons. Encourage good, and they play into His hands. Encourage evil that result in visible suffering and injustice, and many will be awakened from indifference and spurred on to salvation. What can the demons do?

Let’s suppose that God stopped the evil acts. He did not stop the war-planners from choosing to carry their plans out, He only stopped the effects. This did not compromise anyone’s free will- for the planners will still be responsible for their plans regardless of their completion.

What would the demons think of this? They will get the planners, which they would have gotten anyway. Now, however. there is something very different from before. There never was a war, so no one awoke from moral slumber in outrage. They can still continue on in their indifference as before, for nothing has disturbed them and roused them to action. The demons now have time to complete their work and make the apathy complete unto death.

In a nutshell: the demons get the planners and the ordinary folk. If the war had broken out, they only would have gotten the planners and a few of the ordinary folk.

Would would a wise, good God do?

This is the fundamental answer to the question, as well as Swan’s question of why God allows the ordinary people to experience the war.

 

[Fran65]

As an atheist, my answer is simple: suffering is a negative phenomenon. As social beings it is our advantage to prevent or minimize it, so if we (personally) experience it, others will come to our aid and help us.
But what is your reason to do that?

I have the same reason. Suffering is suffering. Except that I believe our desire to help others and ability to do so is strengthened by our faith in God.

Catholics (at least those ones who expressed their views) asserted that all sufferings (not just some) have some unspecified greater good coming out from them.

I think I’ve answered you.

If, presumably, all sufferings have a beneficial corollary attached to them, then it is foolish to prevent or minimize the suffering, since by virtue of preventing or minimizing them we also prevent the following “greater” good, which would ensue.

I am sorry, but I think this argument is trite. I find is astonishing that you could believe that it is foolish to (try to) prevent suffering! People with apalastic anaemia are resistant to malaria. You are surely not suggesting that we carry out genetic engineering to produce aplastic anaemia in the whole population at risk of malaria!

So it is “good” to be stuck in a disaster, because others might be encouraged to help?

Here, you misrepresent what I said. I said that good can come out of natural disaster, but that does not mean it is desirable to be involved in one. It is going to occur anyway because we live in the physical world in its current state. We have to work for the good given those situations. Catholics pray for an end to all suffering and for peace and God’s kingdom on earth. In addition, we work to provide relief to victims of disaster, disease, poverty and abuse. What are you doing?

Obviously I find it reprehensible that God would “use” these human beings to attempt to coax a decent behavior from the rest of us.

*You *may construe it that way. Sadly, you have misunderstood. It is part of response to God’s love that we try to love others as we love ourselves. It is not God ‘coaxing’ or demanding.

So why does not the same principle apply to God?

You know what I’m going to say and it will upset you. I believe that God has a plan and that plan is working through. We’re humans. We can’t understand it. It similar to an ant trying to understand the mind of Stephen Hawking only with a much bigger difference between them. In addition, I don’t think something being ‘famous’ negates its validity. It is a mystery - take it or leave it. You have free will after all!

Try to explain just what “good” can come out from allowing a psychopath to rape and torture someone to death? Or is that question yet another one of those famous “mysteries” that are always invoked when presented with an unanswerable question?

I do have an answer. You still won’t like it. That psychopath has behaved in that way because s/he is separated from God. They have no knowledge of God’s love and compassion. They have no faith. They are behaving according to the premises of what many atheists propose as their philosophy. Rationalism, relativism and the pre-eminent self. They are behaving in an evil way.

When I say faith, by the way, what I mean is a real, deep and enduring realtionship with God. I do not mean calling oneself ‘christian’ and going to church on sundays.

Our suffering is not always inevitable. As knowledge and technology grows, we can predict and prevent some sufferings. As medical science advances, we can treat pain better and more efficiently. There is no more “biting the bullet” when a painful operation happens, we have effective ways and means to prevent and treat pains.

You place all of your hope in man and our intellect. That betrays your basic philosophy. Man first. Everything else second - if at all.

 

[ateista]

Instead of answering the individual posts, I want to introduce a bit of new terminology:

Bad suffering: suffering which is gratuitous, which has either no good coming from it, or it may have some good coming out of it, but the good does not compensate for the bad part.

Good suffering: suffering which is logically necessary (and this is the crux of the matter) for bringing forth a greater good, and which suffering cannot be lessened without losing that greater good, as well.

The concept of logically necessary means that if you remove the suffering, you will also lose the possible greater good. Since the possible greater good more than compensates for the bad, by removing the bad part, you receive a net loss.

I believe that most suffering is bad, though there might be some suffering that is good. Therefore it is logical for me to try and prevent or minimize the suffering. Chances are that I might prevent some greater good, but the chance is very small. There is a huge probability that - if I am successful - I prevented some bad suffering.

You guys believe that all suffering is good. Therefore it is totally illogical to attempt to interfere, since by removing the logical prerequisite, you also remove the ensuing greater good.

As such your preaching (all suffering is good) and your actions (attempting to prevent or minimize suffering) is in contradiction. There is no “mystery” here, only illogical, self-contradictory behavior. That is all.

 

[Fran65]

Again, ateista, you set yourself up as the arbiter of what constitutes ‘bad’ and ‘good’ suffering.

It is another example of your philosophy of man and his intellect first. Everything else second.

It seems that you are unable to answer my previous post fully. I assume you think the same about my replies. We talk past each other and that is not surprising given your philosophical position and mine. We live in two different worlds, and for that I am sorry.

 

[Fran65]

The world that you seem to suggest reminds me of some lyrics written by someone who struggled with his faith and what a dreadful place he finds himself in without God.

“If you are my shepherd
Then I’m lost and no-one can find me
If you are my saviour
Then I’m dead and no-one can help me
If you are my glory
Then I’m sick and no-one can cure me
If you light my darkness
Then I’m blind and no-one can see me
If you are my father
Then love lies abandoned and bleeding
If you are my comfort
Then nightmares are real and deceiving
If you are my answer
Then I must have asked the wrong question”

 

[ateista]

Again, ateista, you set yourself up as the arbiter of what constitutes ‘bad’ and ‘good’ suffering.

No, I don’t do that. I simply contend that not all sufferings are “good”. And can bring up examples to illustrate that. Obviously I can be mistaken, and I am open to counter-arguments. But none is forthcoming, except the “mystery” argument.

It is another example of your philosophy of man and his intellect first. Everything else second.

Naturally. As far as we know, there are no other beings superior to us. That does not preclude the possibility, of course, but insofar it is an empty speculation.

But that is not the point at all.

If all sufferings are good (logically necessary to create some greater good) then it is illogical and counterproductive to try to prevent or minimize them. This is the simplest logic of all.

Believers say one thing (all sufferings are good) but then turn around and act as if sufferings should be prevented of lessened. To me it indicates that deep inside they know that sufferings are bad, but do not have the intellectual honesty to say it out loud.

 

[RubyT]

Again, ateista, you set yourself up as the arbiter of what constitutes ‘bad’ and ‘good’ suffering.

It is another example of your philosophy of man and his intellect first. Everything else second.

It seems that you are unable to answer my previous post fully. I assume you think the same about my replies. We talk past each other and that is not surprising given your philosophical position and mine. We live in two different worlds, and for that I am sorry.

I don’t need a scientific research study to know when I have had an experience from God which is a spiritual experience not defined by science. I tell you, it was suffering that lead me to those experiences. Of course at the time I was suffering it felt like suffering and I didn’t like it. However, today I wouldn’t change that suffering one bit since it lead me to my experience with God.

How can one know what good comes out of suffering? Can one really expect an objective criterion which shows the benefits of suffering? One doesn’t know over time how that suffering may have affected that person or where that suffering put that person in life. One doesn’t know over time how the person responded to the suffering and what path it lead them on. One can’t possibly know that. Yet you are defining good suffering and bad suffering. That seems a bit narcissistic to me.

Ateista, In my opinion your distraughtness over others belief in God is merely a form of hope that one day you too will find a belief in God which doesn’t fit neatly into an objective scientific criterion.

 

[RubyT]

No, I don’t do that. I simply contend that not all sufferings are “good”. And can bring up examples to illustrate that. Obviously I can be mistaken, and I am open to counter-arguments. But none is forthcoming, except the “mystery” argument.

Naturally. As far as we know, there are no other beings superior to us. That does not preclude the possibility, of course, but insofar it is an empty speculation.

But that is not the point at all.

If all sufferings are good (logically necessary to create some greater good) then it is illogical and counterproductive to try to prevent or minimize them. This is the simplest logic of all.

Believers say one thing (all sufferings are good) but then turn around and act as if sufferings should be prevented of lessened. To me it indicates that deep inside they know that sufferings are bad, but do not have the intellectual honesty to say it out loud.

You claim believers say one thing, that all suffering is good. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Where do you get this bologna. This is your perception to support your philosophy. So please don’t speak about believers like you actually know their minds. All I am saying is you don’t know if suffering leads to good or not. Nothing more and nothing less. Don’t extrapolate your own narcisistic perspective from our words to support your claims.

You said as far as we know there are no superior beings to us, you say that like it is a factual truth because it is empty speculation. It is your empty speculation, not mine. There is no we in that statement only you.

Jesus loves you even if you don’t know it.

 

[ateista]

You claim believers say one thing, that all suffering is good. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Where do you get this bologna.

I got this “baloney” from the posters on this and other boards. They contend that God is “good” and thus God allows only “good” suffering, that God does not allow unnecessary, gratuitous suffering. After all if someone allows unnecessary, gratuitous suffering, then that being is not good, could be indifferent, or could be evil.

Looks like you disagree with them. Do you really believe that God does allow unnecessary suffering? And if so, on what grounds do you call God “good” (if, of course you do… )?

This is your perception to support your philosophy. So please don’t speak about believers like you actually know their minds.

Am I allowed to quote them? Are their own words not to be taken to mean what they say? If you wish to read this thread, you see that I did not “invent” what I said.

All I am saying is you don’t know if suffering leads to good or not. Nothing more and nothing less. Don’t extrapolate your own narcisistic perspective from our words to support your claims.

Narcisstic??? Looks like that you allow yourself to make inferences about my frame of mind…

You said as far as we know there are no superior beings to us, you say that like it is a factual truth because it is empty speculation. It is your empty speculation, not mine. There is no we in that statement only you.

Maybe you “know”, in other words you have objective, repeatable proof for your “belief”. If that is case, you could share it… but I seriously doubt that. You may “believe”, you may even strongly believe, but that does not count as evidence, much less proof.

I have yet to meet a believer, who would dare to say that he or she has objective proof for God’s existence or any other non-human being who has superior intelligence.

 

[Fran65]

Ateista,
I find your arguments repetitive. I’m sorry that you clearly feel so angry and bitter.

Again, I’ve told you what Catholics try to do about suffering. What are you doing?

I have never said that suffering isgood. I have said that good comes out of suffering. Take that concept away from people and what have you achieved? Unrelenting, meaningless suffering without hope. So much better than faith! Real pain, real misery, real despair. What an improvement!

Faith can alleviate mental suffering. It gives people hope, strength and the ability to endure.

I see the purpose of your argument ateista and its another reason why I reject it.

 

[ateista]

Ateista,
I find your arguments repetitive. I’m sorry that you clearly feel so angry and bitter.

They are repetitive, because no logical answer is given. As for “angry” and “bitter”, I have no idea where that comes from. I am as cheerful and happy as can be. And it is very happy and cheerful indeed. (And I am truly getting tired of being accused of bitter, angry and hopeless.)

Again, I’ve told you what Catholics try to do about suffering. What are you doing?

I help where I can. But my help is logically founded. I consider most suffering as needless, so I try to fix it.

I have never said that suffering isgood. I have said that good comes out of suffering.

No real difference. If good comes out of suffering, then it is “good”. Take away the suffering and you took away the good. And that is the question, for which I cannot get an answer, only evasion. If it is always true, that some good will come out of any suffering, then the purpose of the suffering is to improve, and get the life better.

Risking repetition again: necessary suffering means that the suffering is a logical prerequisite to the alleged good. Take away the suffering and you took away the good. Why is that such a difficult concept to comprehend?

Take that concept away from people and what have you achieved? Unrelenting, meaningless suffering without hope. So much better than faith! Real pain, real misery, real despair. What an improvement!

Reality is not sugarcoated, just so it will seem to be better than it is. I prefer truth to sweet, mistaken fantasy. Many people don’t. They escape into fantasy, into alcoholism or drugs. Would you condone getting drunk, just because it “helps” to endure the pain? That would be a logical thing to do.

Faith can alleviate mental suffering. It gives people hope, strength and the ability to endure.

Sometimes that is true. But no amount of faith will take away the suffering of a cancer patient.

I see the purpose of your argument ateista and its another reason why I reject it.

There is no purpose, except exchanging ideas.

 

[RubyT]

I got this “baloney” from the posters on this and other boards. They contend that God is “good” and thus God allows only “good” suffering, that God does not allow unnecessary, gratuitous suffering. After all if someone allows unnecessary, gratuitous suffering, then that being is not good, could be indifferent, or could be evil.

Looks like you disagree with them. Do you really believe that God does allow unnecessary suffering? And if so, on what grounds do you call God “good” (if, of course you do… )?

Am I allowed to quote them? Are their own words not to be taken to mean what they say? If you wish to read this thread, you see that I did not “invent” what I said.

Narcisstic??? Looks like that you allow yourself to make inferences about my frame of mind…

Maybe you “know”, in other words you have objective, repeatable proof for your “belief”. If that is case, you could share it… but I seriously doubt that. You may “believe”, you may even strongly believe, but that does not count as evidence, much less proof.

I have yet to meet a believer, who would dare to say that he or she has objective proof for God’s existence or any other non-human being who has superior intelligence.

Ateista, I am short on time right now and will address some of your other reponses later. For now let me ask you do you believe that any spiritual experiences from God or any entity can occur? If not, is it for lack of quantifiable objective evidence? From what you say this seems to be your position on the matter.

So if a Native American says they feel one with the earth in a spiritual way this too you would reject for lack of evidence. The nature of spiritual experiences is not within the scientific worldly realm and thus one cannot expect scientific worldly evidence as proof. What you hold as fact if you don’t get that proof is merely just a closed minded perspective. In no way can one refute spiritual experiences because they don’t fit neatly into the wordly scientific perspective.

When you are in love, do you have a objective criterion to prove that you are in love or do you just know?
Many forum posters have had experiences form God but they are not allowed to share them because they must be verified by the church. Forum administrators just don’t allow it since they have no way of knowing if the church has validated the experience.
That is why you have never heard their testimonies, not because they don’t exist but rather because they are not permitted. Your statements requiring objective evidence as proof is clearly narrow minded because you are expecting worldly evidence from a spiritual realm.
The error in this expectation is that the recipient of such an experience, like myself, can validate it through the church which has the knowledge to discern the experience. The church has been around for 2000 years and thus has great knowledge. I validated this through the church, I hardly think I need to prove it to you. But of course you won’t take my word for it, why should you? You claim the only way to validate the experience is through objective repeated evidence and I claim such thinking is incorrect. One cannot expect wordly evidence from a spiritual realm and thus your argument has unreasonable logic.

I will get back to you later on the rest. Till then have a wonderful day. God Bless.