SPLIT: on suffering

[ateista]

No good comes out of the suffering of hell. At the same time, this is voluntary suffering, and you have said you have no problem with this, only involuntary suffering.

I was contemplating how to answer this. Many times I read on these boards that people “choose” hell, but this is the first time when it was actually told to me.

In the other instances I simply disregarded this assertion as a sign of lunacy. But you do not strike me as a lunatic, so I will respond.

Voluntary suffering presupposes that the person is aware of the impending suffering and gives his consent to it.

To be told by others that there is hell, and there are certain activities that will put you there is not “knowledge”. No, I do not believe in hell, and I do not believe that the activities Catholics mention will “put” me there.

Therefore in no way, shape or form can you say that if I land in hell, it was my volitional decision, that my suffering there is voluntary.

I have little hope that you will agree to this. Naturally, since accepting that the suffering in hell is not volitional, you would have to agree that God allows unneccessary suffering, and thus undercut your own defense in the problem of evil. And that is one thing no Christian will do. Come hell or high water, they will rationalize the suffering. Not that they convince anyone.

Have a good life, buddy.

 

[Dameedna]

We have been discussing the internal consistency of Catholic theological thought. Therefore, you must accept the premises before you can evaluate its consistency. If you hold a different opinion in regards to the greater good, that’s fine, but you cannot claim that the Catholic Faith is inconsistent based on your own definitions.

Something can be consistant within itself, but not consistant with observation. I guess the point is, the premises themselves could be wrong. One can create an entirely consistant argument, that is based on nothing but falsehood.

Perhaps, it’s the premise that requires questioning instead of accepting.

My comment was not about rape. You argued that God should uncreate those who reject Him. I said that this may not be possible in timelessness, so such a choice on the part of the individual person would need to be made in time. Since that person is still in time and could still change his or her mind, I argued that it would be reasonable for God to refrain from pulling the trigger in the hope that the person would come around with time.

God hopes for something in time?

You know what the two of you are discussing you really sound like you are discussing entirely different things.

 

[Dameedna]

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?

This will be a bit long: I’ve tried to reduce as much as I can sorry

I would love for it all to be put right in the end, but I simply don’t believe that it will. I don’t want to take away your comfort in this belief, but for me it means we need to address the suffering now.

Athiests aren’t hopeless and despairing. Try and think a bit differently about this, and try and see how we may percieve it.

On the contrary, we have a lot of hope, because we realize most of the issues, are human made and hence solvable. This does not cause despair. Being able to solve a problem(or even the potential to solve it), inspires hope and often fills some-one like a researcher/scientist with a great deal of passion. Imagine…curing Aids….

Anything that is nature made, we can find a tool to fix as well. So…putting our heads together, there is a great deal we can do and we have so much hope, that we can actually achieve it. We aren’t requiring divine intervention, nor do we blame a God for it that doesn’t exist. It’s OUR problem. All of it and we can do a lot to fix it. We really can. That is our hope and our belief.

What we don’t want(can only actually speak for me really, but this tends to be true from other athiests I know), is for believers to use God as an excuse to justify pain and suffering. Now YOU may not do that, and honestly I meet very few catholics who do so. I have met quite a few fundamentalist protestants that rejoice in the pain of others, and how great Gods love is when he “kills off” the homosexuals with the HIV virus…sigh.

Perhaps you accept some mystery around suffereing and that is fine.(and probably not such a bad thing at the end of the day) So, there may be some suffering that is mysterious and is of benefit.

However, how far do you take this, before suffering can no longer be justified or accepted as a mystery. How often do people say “it will be alright in heaven” making themselves excempt from helping people now?

This is what I see and I think it is a HUGE problem. It is THE problem…to me.(for all religions, not just christianity)

For example, the concept of Karma, is one that invites the individual to accept the suffering they recieve as a teaching mechanism. They need to learn something from their past life, and this gives them that opportunity in this life. This life…and it’s suffering is a Gift, that should never be rejected.

This has caused a wave of horror within fundamentalist Hindu(and the occasional fundie buddhist…rare as they are). This very concept of “suffering” being of greater purpose is responsible for the dreadful caste system that India suffers from. Basically, if you are born poor, that is where you belong as THAT is the lesson you need to learn from a former life. To try and irradicate that poverty, you are going against God. Stay where you are, it’s where you belong. WHY the suffering is needed, the EXACT lesson God is giving, is…of course…a mystery.

Other groups that do this to a degree, are FDLS, and to 7th day adventists . Your physical ailments are a result of displeasing God, and you need to learn to follow God more, and the suffering will go away. The reason for the ailment and what you did wrong…is of course…a Mystery.

And finally, mainstream christianity has done this in the past. To try and cut open a (dead) human body was to divine God’s secrets and was wrong, so a lot of medical research(which is an attempt to help people and alleviate suffering) was against Gods divine plan. Disease was a punishment and should be taken as such, pray and hope for redemption. No thought to actually try and figure out why it was happening.

We were not to question what happened because to do this, was to question God. Islam, was far more advanced than the christian world in terms of science and medical research for the LONGEST time, because they never used God as an excuse to justify suffering the way christianity did. It is one of the great sins of your church and religion.(Islam had a rudimentry understanding of the circulartory system by 1000 AD as an example, they also had a burgeoning understanding of evolution around 400-500 years before darwin). Christianity on the other hand, had a bible where anything that may challenge it, must simply be wrong and this greatly slowed down the learning process, and often was in direct conflict with what may actually help alleviate people’s suffering.

Now, keeping that in mind, do you understand why some of us want the suffering to be acknowleged, not as some higher or greater purpose but as an actual sufferering that has NO higher goal and Must…NEEDS to be addressed now?

The whole idea of an eternal life being the end result even if some-one suffers , has been used for far to long to prolong people’s suffering or to induce apathy.

No attempt to create despair going on here just a need for people to acknowlege the suffering, and do what they can to fix it, without the excuse it’s all part of a big plan.

Let that bring you comfort if it does, but no more excuses. We have to try and fix things. God is not an excuse for laziness or apathy and I hope you feel the same way

Accept it’s a mystery, don’t try and justify it and let’s move on. Let’s get cracking on fixing this mess we’ve made

 

[Sarpedon]

Voluntary suffering presupposes that the person is aware of the impending suffering and gives his consent to it.

Yes, a sin can only be mortal if the person is fully aware of the fact that such sin constitutes grave matter and fully consents to the action.

To be told by others that there is hell, and there are certain activities that will put you there is not “knowledge”. No, I do not believe in hell, and I do not believe that the activities Catholics mention will “put” me there.

You know what the Catholic Church teaches. If you personally choose to ignore what the church teaches, then you are choosing to accept any consequences that result.

If someone declares that they can fly, and jumps off a cliff, would you say that their death was “voluntary?”

You are faced with a choice. You know what the church teaches. You have to decide whether you will ignore the church or not. This is a free choice, but your choice will have consequences that you know about and you cannot claim to be “ignorant” of those consequences.

You think the Church is illogical. If you reject the church due to this, you are declaring your own mental powers sufficient for rejecting God. There is a very real chance that you have overlooked something or that you simply are lacking in some mental ability (like spatial). By trusting in your own mind only, you declare yourself to be perfect.

Of course, I am probably overlooking somethings and lacking in certain aspects as well. At the same time, I don’t base my faith entirely on logic. I have never found anything illogical about the faith, but even so I can only trust my mind up to a point.

 

[Sarpedon]

Something can be consistant within itself, but not consistant with observation. I guess the point is, the premises themselves could be wrong. One can create an entirely consistant argument, that is based on nothing but falsehood.

Perhaps, it’s the premise that requires questioning instead of accepting.

Of course, but Ateista said that we did not consistently “practice what we preach.” I responded by saying that our system can be evaluated in terms of our beliefs, such as the GG being the collective salvation of mankind. Ateista disagrees with that premise, but that doesn’t mean that our system is contradictory.

God hopes for something in time?

No, He hopes that people will respond in time. God already knows but He may need to make the opportunities within time for such knowledge to be knowable.

 

[bettyg51]

Why do we blame God when evil things happen? I am toying with a different answer to this question and I’d like some feedback. I’m posting this here because the topic is suffering, but this post is not a response to anyone.

We can see that some things are better than others. There is a continuum that goes from an absence of good to infinite good. The infinite good is part of the nature of God. Evil is an absence of good.
To say that God causes evil is analogous to saying that good, better and best is the cause of worst. That is not logical. Instead, the closer things get to being like God, the better they are.
I may be smarter than others, but that does not mean I cause others to be less smart. I may be kinder than others, but I do not cause others to be meaner. I am like that when I choose to be more like God.

The opposite of this idea of a continuum is pantheism, which says all things are equally good because God is in all things. Suffering is an illusion.
We have to distinguish between physical evil and moral evil. Choosing to be more like God is a moral choice, so the natural consequences reward good and punish evil.

Then there is physical evil. Things like car accidents seem evil, but the suffering from them is the result of natural laws of physics. Two solid objects can’t occupy the same space at the same time. So do we really want God to change this law so that there are no solid objects? Do we want to abolish the laws of inertia? No. More good is accomplished by the laws of physics being the way they are than chaos that would happen if God was constantly making exceptions to these laws. The continuum between good and evil applies here too. The good that comes from the laws of physics does not cause the evil that comes from these laws. The good effects do not cause the worst effects.

Stuff happens. It is our judgement that we should be in control that is the source of our pain when we discover we are not in control. We are not supposed to be in control or always know why things happen. Suffering is a mystery. Our ability to understand why it is better for some things to happen is limited. Only God is all powerful and all knowing. It is best to let God be God.

What do you think of this idea?

 

[ateista]

Yes, a sin can only be mortal if the person is fully aware of the fact that such sin constitutes grave matter and fully consents to the action.

Excellent. Therefore I cannot be in the state of mortal sin, since I don’t accept someone else’s definition (of grave matter) if it contradicts common sense.

You know what the Catholic Church teaches. If you personally choose to ignore what the church teaches, then you are choosing to accept any consequences that result.

I am sure you are aware that there a zillions of other religions, and all claim that they are the sole holders of the “truth”. There is one common thing to all of them: namely that none of them can substantiate their claim.

If someone declares that they can fly, and jumps off a cliff, would you say that their death was “voluntary?”

Wrong example. I could verify their claim by using different methods, and ascertain myself whether their claim is valid or not - before taking that fatal jump. None of the religions can offer a method by which I (or anyone else) could do that. It is all based upon the blind acceptance of an unsubstantiated claim.

You are faced with a choice. You know what the church teaches. You have to decide whether you will ignore the church or not. This is a free choice, but your choice will have consequences that you know about and you cannot claim to be “ignorant” of those consequences.

Yes, I most certainly can claim that I am ignorant. I don’t “know” if their claims are valid or not. Those are only the empty claims of some people. There is nothing behind them.

You think the Church is illogical. If you reject the church due to this, you are declaring your own mental powers sufficient for rejecting God.

Sure thing. To be more precise to reject what the Church claims to be a valid description of a hypothetical God.

There is a very real chance that you have overlooked something or that you simply are lacking in some mental ability (like spatial). By trusting in your own mind only, you declare yourself to be perfect.

Not “perfect”, just sufficient to reject a claim which cannot be substantiated, and which is self-contradictory.

To reiterate: no one can volitionally choose to be in hell. No one has the knowledge if hell exists at all, or precisely know what hell might be if exists. And no one can know exactly just what actions will result in being “thrown” into hell. There are only the unsubstantiated claims of different churches, who cannot give any proof that their claim is correct and not just a figment of their imagination.

Therefore the suffering in hell (if it exists) is not voluntary. No one of sound mind would choose to be tortured forever.

 

[Fran65]

because we realize most of the issues, are human made and hence solvable. This does not cause despair. Being able to solve a problem(or even the potential to solve it), inspires hope and often fills some-one like a researcher/scientist with a great deal of passion.

I and most Catholics & Christians that I know also see many man made problems as solveable. There are, believe it or not many commited Catholics and Christians working in science, education, law enforcement and medicine.

The despair comes in when you realise that there is tremendous suffering, about which we can do little or nothing; without God then an abused and murdered child’s suffering and death is meaningless. He will never experience the arms and comfort of a loving parent. There is no hope for people dying from an degenerative disease with intractable pain and there is no one to turn to that is there with you every minute of every day. people get tired, people are fallible, people can let you down. God has nevery let me down. Nightmares, sickness, grief, depression, He is there every step.

Anything that is nature made, we can find a tool to fix as well. So…putting our heads together, there is a great deal we can do and we have so much hope, that we can actually achieve it. We aren’t requiring divine intervention, nor do we blame a God for it that doesn’t exist. It’s OUR problem. All of it and we can do a lot to fix it. We really can. That is our hope and our belief.

I don’t blame God for anything. It is our problem, but we have God with us and we have His help and guidance. I take antibiotics when I’m sick. There is a difference betwen Catholicism and Christain Science you know!

What we don’t want(can only actually speak for me really, but this tends to be true from other athiests I know), is for believers to use God as an excuse to justify pain and suffering.

Perhaps you accept some mystery around suffereing and that is fine.(and probably not such a bad thing at the end of the day) So, there may be some suffering that is mysterious and is of benefit.

I can only say that I don’t justify pain or suffering, but I do know that God will bring good out of suffering. It is a mystery that I can and do live with.

However, how far do you take this, before suffering can no longer be justified or accepted as a mystery. How often do people say “it will be alright in heaven” making themselves excempt from helping people now?

Jesus tells us very clearly to feed the poor, care for the sick and alleviate suffering as far as we can. He said that how we treat others is how we treat Him.

After the death of someone who suffered many take comfort in the thought of their loved one reaching heaven - particularly children. What use is there in taking this hope away?

Your physical ailments are a result of displeasing God, and you need to learn to follow God more, and the suffering will go away. The reason for the ailment and what you did wrong…is of course…a Mystery.

Catholicism rejects this teaching, the caste system and reincarnation as incorrect understanding of the nature of God and our lives.

And finally, mainstream christianity has done this in the past. To try and cut open a (dead) human body was to divine God’s secrets and was wrong, so a lot of medical research(which is an attempt to help people and alleviate suffering) was against Gods divine plan. Disease was a punishment and should be taken as such, pray and hope for redemption. No thought to actually try and figure out why it was happening.

Actually the majority of higher education was carried out by the Catholic Church. There’s a thread on that topic if you do a search.

In addition, I’m not discussing *medieval *beliefs and superstition. I’m discussing modern day Catholicism.

Without God there is no hope. That is my experience and my belief. *You *can believe anything that you want.

 

[ateista]

The despair comes in when you realise that there is tremendous suffering, about which we can do little or nothing; without God then an abused and murdered child’s suffering and death is meaningless.

Any death is meaningless without God.

God has nevery let me down. Nightmares, sickness, grief, depression, He is there every step.

Lucky you. God never came to me, even when I was religious. I never had nightmares or depressions, but I was sick and God did not cure me (the doctors did), and when I grieved for my parents, I took solace in the fact that they had a full and happy life.

I can only say that I don’t justify pain or suffering, but I do know that God will bring good out of suffering. It is a mystery that I can and do live with.

Mystery? Ah, yes, the ever-present get-out-of-jail-free card.

After the death of someone who suffered many take comfort in the thought of their loved one reaching heaven - particularly children. What use is there in taking this hope away?

Except their behavior belies their faith. Christians mourn their dead just as everyone else. If they really believed that their loved one is now with God, the logical behavior would be rejoicing and celebrating. But they don’t. Could it be that they don’t “really” believe what they preach?

 

[Fran65]

Yes, ateista, I am lucky. At 43, I have a heart condition that could kill me anytime. Heart surgery every four-five years, daily medication, low blood pressure and multiple restrictions on my energy levels and lifestyle. However, I do have faith which I consider to be a great gift. My survival is partly due to medical care, but also to God’s grace. My heart condition was only diagnosed six years ago and without treatment I had a one in four chance of sudden death every year of life. Over 90% of those with my condition (untreated) don’t make it out of their teens. I beat the odds to make it to 37.

The reason that Christians mourn their dead is because we miss them! They (may) have gone to a better place, but we are now living without them. People are selfish, and although I pray that loved ones are in heaven and take solace in their full lives, they are no longer with me and I miss them!! You can understand that surely?

I have been very sad and missed my 19 year old son a great deal this past year. He, however has been having a great time, travelling to Vietnam, Florence and is now at Oxford University studying History. Fantastic, (almost) everything I’ve ever wanted for him - but I still miss him!!

Forgive me, but it seems ateista that things are very black and white to you. If you beleive in God then the only thing that will heal you is prayer? I’m not a Christian Scientist. I hope that dead loved ones are in a better place therefore I won’t miss them? I’m not a vulcan!

 

[Sarpedon]

Excellent. Therefore I cannot be in the state of mortal sin, since I don’t accept someone else’s definition (of grave matter) if it contradicts common sense.

What is “commen sense?” The vast majority of people believe in God. On what ground can you justify the claims of a few as “common?” Common sense is supposed to be that which typical people know. Are you saying the vast majority of the world’s people are idiots?

Again, it does not matter if you personally accept it. If you jump off the cliff, it doesn’t matter at all whether you accept the law of gravity or not. If you were totally ignorant of gravity, then you could be pardoned in people’s minds. If you knew the vast majority of people accepted gravity, and you decided that your own opinion was superior, no one would cut you slack.

There are ways of examining the claim- see below.

I am not arguing for “group consensus makes right”, only that all people, myself included, need to acknowledge that there are undoubtedly things we lack ability in and that we may be ignorant of that lack. It’s ultimately a judgement call, which most cultures have called “wisdom.”

I am sure you are aware that there a zillions of other religions, and all claim that they are the sole holders of the “truth”. There is one common thing to all of them: namely that none of them can substantiate their claim.

This is your opinion. What do you base your opinion on? If you have not yet looked at the summa or the CCC, here is are links. You have no basis for evaluating Catholicism if you have not studied the doctrine of the Church apart from the postings on this board.

newadvent.org/summa/index.html

vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

The summa is not infallible, but it is more focused on philosophy. The CCC contains more theology.

Wrong example. I could verify their claim by using different methods, and ascertain myself whether their claim is valid or not - before taking that fatal jump. None of the religions can offer a method by which I (or anyone else) could do that. It is all based upon the blind acceptance of an unsubstantiated claim.

(my emphasis)

You have been engaged in one of the methods on this thread. You may disagree with the conclusions, but we are both using the same method, “speaking the same language”, so to speak. Otherwise, this discussion would be impossible.

You try to tear down religion by philosophy. If religion can respond, successfully or not, then there is a method by which it can respond for your evaluation. Surely you do not disagree with this?

Sure thing. To be more precise to reject what the Church claims to be a valid description of a hypothetical God.

What is your justification for this statement? How do you know you have the necessary spatial, analytic, and abstraction skills to reach this conclusion? Can you provide a detailed point-by-point explanation?

Not “perfect”, just sufficient to reject a claim which cannot be substantiated, and which is self-contradictory.

How do you know it is self-contradictory? By using your mental ability? What if you mental ability is lacking somewhat?

Please note that I am not trying to call you an idiot, rather questioning your assumptions about the human mind in reference to yourself. I may be lacking in certain mental abilities as well (of course, my faith is not based 100% on logic).

To reiterate: no one can volitionally choose to be in hell. No one has the knowledge if hell exists at all, or precisely know what hell might be if exists. And no one can know exactly just what actions will result in being “thrown” into hell. There are only the unsubstantiated claims of different churches, who cannot give any proof that their claim is correct and not just a figment of their imagination.

Catholics provide numerous methods, and I provided links above. God judges each person individually, but if a person deliberately either knows about the method and refuses to look at it, or disagrees with the conclusion and thus places his or her mind above God with full knowledge, this is sin.

 

[JDaniel]

I am sure you are aware that there a zillions of other religions . . .

Document or retract. :dancing:

There is one common thing to all of them: namely that none of them can substantiate their claim.

And, ateista, neither can you.

JD

 

[ateista]

Again, it does not matter if you personally accept it. If you jump off the cliff, it doesn’t matter at all whether you accept the law of gravity or not.

The law of gravity does not have to be accepted on “faith”. It can be verifed by skeptics, by using a few simple experiments. That is the feature which is missing from religious claims. They must be accepted on faith, and there is no way to verify them. As a matter of fact, it is always stressed that one cannot test (and is not supposed to test) God. So even the possibility of making a test is excluded from the available tools. The objective method of testing is declared “sinful”. Where does that leave me? Believeing someone else’s words.

There are ways of examining the claim- see below.

They are all based on having faith in the utterances of other people. Again, there is no objective method to verify any of the claims.

How do you know it is self-contradictory? By using your mental ability? What if you mental ability is lacking somewhat?

How do you know that there can be no 4-sided triangles and married bachelors? Do you doubt your mental faculties when you “think” you know that these are nonsensical?

Catholics provide numerous methods, and I provided links above.

The links are useless. Testing God is prohibited. There is only “faith”.

God judges each person individually, but if a person deliberately either knows about the method and refuses to look at it, or disagrees with the conclusion and thus places his or her mind above God with full knowledge, this is sin.

Why would it be? As the old commercial said: “where is the beef?”.

If the only “method” is blind faith, if the only way to accept it is to trust the words of fallible people, if there is no objective method to verify those claims, [edited]. If I am required to suspend all the knowledge and follow the claims blidly, then this being “sinful” is a joke in a very bad taste.

 

[ateista]

Document or retract.

Are you not familiar with other religions?

And, ateista, neither can you.

I am not making positive claims. One cannot prove a negative claim, that no sane person wants to be tortured eternally.

 

[JDaniel]

Are you not familiar with other religions?

It’s a joke, albeit not much of one. I thought it was funny that a mathematician used the word “zillions”. That’s all.

I am not making positive claims.

Is not, “There is one common thing to all of them: namely that none of them can substantiate their claim,” a positive claim?

JD

 

[ateista]

It’s a joke, albeit not much of one. I thought it was funny that a mathematician used the word “zillions”. That’s all.

I intended it as a synonym for many. I have no knowledge of any enumerated list of all the religions.

Is not, “There is one common thing to all of them: namely that none of them can substantiate their claim,” a positive claim?

Formally it could be conceived as such. I did not bother to postulate it in a fully negative form, it would have been too cumbersome. But it does not really matter.

If you wish to refute it, you are welcome. All you have to do is present a proof, which can be validated by someone, who does not accept the claim a-priori.

 

[JDaniel]

I intended it as a synonym for many. I have no knowledge of any enumerated list of all the religions.

I know . . . just making another lame joke. On a less serious note, there are, according to most compilations of world religions, about 30,000 different “religions”.

Formally it could be conceived as such. I did not bother to postulate it in a fully negative form, it would have been too cumbersome. But it does not really matter.

Of course it matters. You might have spent days trying to word it ever so correctly!

If you wish to refute it, you are welcome. All you have to do is present a proof, which can be validated by someone, who does not accept the claim a-priori.

Refutation is simple; but, I will not undertake the job (unless someone pays me ) to go out and communicate with each one of the world’s religions to find out what they believe and why. And, I am pretty sure you didn’t do it for me.

Thus, no a priori neutral validator is a priori necessary.

There is obviously a chasm between your understanding of the pre-suppositions of Catholic (Thomistic and Ontological) arguments and our understanding of the pre-suppositions of your semi-mathematical arguments. The odds are, we won’t conclude alike for quite some time.

I’m old and, personally, have no desire to continue dispersing words into cyberspace (or, space) that essentially are falling on “deaf ears”. And, I mean no disrespect. Furthermore, it must be frustrating to you as well, as I know you perceive probability, logic and dialectic in terms very differently from ours.

What is true is that some mathematicians are atheists and some are not. Likewise, some non-mathematicians are atheists are some are not.

I know this sounds like a copout. It is. But, in the end, that’s all either of us can do without coming to some sort of agreement on a plethora of terms. Or, perhaps, a willing suspension of disbelief.

Notwithstanding anyone’s negation of what I say to the contrary, I was once an atheist. I was so atheistic that I was responsible for causing a priest to leave his vocation and the Church in order to learn how to better his understanding of our merciful Lord. I had several mystical experiences, very hard to adequately describe that, in almost an instant, changed my mind and my life. Take it of leave it.

God bless you,
JD