The argument of free will and suffering

[laylow]

It is, but the question of measurement was posed as a follow-up to your desire to see those that haven’t experienced much suffering (be they good or bad, apparently) have their fortunes reversed. How would you know when they’ve suffered enough?

I wouldn’t, that is for God to decide.

So then something that can’t actually be measured, right?

No more or less than evil can be measured, yet apparently they will be roasted for eternity.

Then you think that everyone should ultimately experience the same level of suffering in this life or the next regardless of their deeds?

I think for justice to be perfect, things need to be equal, otherwise it’s not justice and definitely not perfect.

Horrifying, in my view. Schadenfreude is evil.

A mere flesh wound compared to the evilness of roasting someone for eternity. In which Aquinas advocated for relishing the opportunity of watching from his self-righteous position in heaven. THAT my friend is pure evil. Do people not realize just how horrific hell is taught in Christianity?

Well, what do you mean by “answer for suffering”?
If you mean “reason it exists”, then sin via free will.

Nope they didn’t chose to suffer.

If you mean “restoration for the good who have suffered”, then heaven via God’s judgement.

Only if they get “more” then those they suffered more than, or those need to make up for it by having their helping of suffering

If you mean “continuance for the evil”, then hell via God’s judgement.

If they already suffered horribly on earth for their sins, why would they need to suffer more later?

Literally everyone suffers. You’ve never met another human being that hasn’t, perhaps excluding infants (but perhaps not, depending on how you define the thus-far-undefined term).
Now, you may not be privy to how they do so in any particular example.

Sure, but I could find thousands of examples that you or no one else would want to trade places with. Don’t kid yourself and think it is close to being equal. So the test is not the same. If so, you wouldn’t see suicides, murders and other crazy things, I could go on.

Care to provide specific passages? Like, in book-chapter-verse format?

I can, but will have to be in another post.

My objection remains intact.

Not from my view.

History provides people exercising their free moral agency - the mechanism that gave rise to suffering.

There won’t be free moral agency in Heaven?

 

[laylow]

There are at least two kinds of sufferers. The wailing whiner and the serenely silent. The former because he has no faith, the latter only because of his faith.

Suffering and serenity, never exclusive one to the other, coexist peaceably as dispositions of body and soul only when when the cross is accepted.

I cannot rationalize a loving God who permits suffering. But faith, the shape of things I hope for, allows me to accept today’s suffering as part of God’s plan without understanding. My desolation ends when I see my suffering as God’s blessing, as an event that brings me closer to Him. Desolation ends but the suffering continues. Those who serenely suffer are at peace because they are with God on His terms.

Maybe you need to be tested more severely as Job was. He complained, he questioned, he demanded an answer. He is wrong to wail? No, he was given the opportunity to speak with God. I don’t see that afforded to anyone else.

 

[Vonsalza]

I wouldn’t, that is for God to decide.

Excellent conclusion! Then we agree that for us, the question is irrelevant.

I think for justice to be perfect, things need to be equal, otherwise it’s not justice and definitely not perfect.

And if God disagrees with your sense of perfection and justice?

Do people not realize just how horrific hell is taught in Christianity?

I think we rather do. It’s the “stick” in the carrot-and-stick combo of religious belief.

Nope they didn’t chose to suffer.

Still a product of will, if not theirs. The fall occurred when Adam ate and we are born into that sad circumstance just as we’re born into the circumstances provided by our parents.

Only if they get “more” then those they suffered more than, or those need to make up for it by having their helping of suffering

So how does one measure the goodness of eternity in paradise?

If they already suffered horribly on earth for their sins, why would they need to suffer more later?

As I understand it, God sits in the seat of judgement. As you seem to feel that many evil people haven’t suffered enough, I think you’re just arguing for argument’s sake, here as indicated by the reversal.

Sure, but I could find thousands of examples that you or no one else would want to trade places with. Don’t kid yourself and think it is close to being equal. So the test is not the same.

I though we’d agreed that there isn’t one?

Not from my view.

You said: Nah, because the privileged think life is good all the time but then claim to speak of justice.
I said: Good grief. Everyone suffers, including those who make more money than you.
You said: By privileged I refer to as good health, good family, good country, good schools, etc, I think money is a small part of being "privileged. People living in the good ole USA immediately think about rich people, when the vast majority of the world is dirt poor.
I said: My objection remains intact.

…So some people don’t suffer? Nonsense.

There won’t be free moral agency in Heaven?

What does that have to do with your interpretation that history somehow generically rebukes Christ’s teachings?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

TO YOU.

Actually… to every rational person.

As I don’t hold that any particular thing looks like “unnecessary suffering”, then your argument falls flat.

Then you are not rational. (Bless your heart! ) Maybe you could think about the obvious suffering experienced by teething infants, and attempt to figure out why that very bad physical pain is “necessary”. We are waiting.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

There are at least two kinds of sufferers. The wailing whiner and the serenely silent. The former because he has no faith, the latter only because of his faith.

The teething infants definitely belong to the first category. They don’t “understand”, they simply suffer… and that suffering is very bad. They cannot “offer up” their suffering. Any parent can tell you about it. They are up all night, and would gladly take over the pain to prevent the suffering of their child.

Oh, and I would bet any amount that people with even the deepest faith will scream and wail if their pain and suffering exceeds a certain limit. No amount of faith can protect you if some psychopath affixes electrodes to your genitals and keeps on increasing the voltage. And if the said psychopath would do it to your child, your suffering would be even worse. So get off your “high horse” about your “faith”.

Even ONE instance of unnecessary suffering proves that God does not care. And NOT caring is evil. Is there anything else you need to know?

 

[laylow]

Excellent conclusion! Then we agree that for us, the question is irrelevant.

I think we disagree on how he handles it.

And if God disagrees with your sense of perfection and justice?

What if he disagrees with the way the church teaches it?

I think we rather do. It’s the “stick” in the carrot-and-stick combo of religious belief.

You didn’t answer any of my other questions. Especially how evil Aquinas is, how evil God was in the OT and how evil it is to burn people forever. If you think allowing suffering in the afterlife as a make up is evil, how can you not think burning and torturing someone forever evil?

Still a product of will, if not theirs. The fall occurred when Adam ate and we are born into that sad circumstance just as we’re born into the circumstances provided by our parents.

Disagree it’s not free will if it’s not my will.

So how does one measure the goodness of eternity in paradise?

No idea, but there are many thoughts that there could be different levels of “heaven” so I suppose that to be a possibility.

As I understand it, God sits in the seat of judgement. As you seem to feel that many evil people haven’t suffered enough, I think you’re just arguing for argument’s sake, here as indicated by the reversal.

No, you said that “evil” people can suffer, so according to teachings, they go to hell to suffer for ever and ever and ever and ever…

I though we’d agreed that there isn’t one?

That there isn’t a test? Don’t think I agreed to that? You don’t believe the book of Job?

You said: Nah, because the privileged think life is good all the time but then claim to speak of justice.
I said: Good grief. Everyone suffers, including those who make more money than you.
You said: By privileged I refer to as good health, good family, good country, good schools, etc, I think money is a small part of being "privileged. People living in the good ole USA immediately think about rich people, when the vast majority of the world is dirt poor.
I said: My objection remains intact.

…So some people don’t suffer? Nonsense.

You know my agrument is that the degree of suffering needs to be equal in order to have perfect justice, I’ve stated that many times.

What does that have to do with your interpretation that history somehow generically rebukes Christ’s teachings?

You said that free moral agency is the mechanism that gave rise to suffering. So if it exists in heaven, suffering can then exist in heaven?

 

[tonyrey]

In other words “good” and “evil” are merely human conventions devised to prevent people from killing others and there is nothing to stop a person from doing so if they can evade detection. You believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a load of nonsense?

Then how do you justify your belief in them? If we exist by chance there’s no reason why we have any rights whatsoever - or for anything…

 

[laylow]

Then how do you justify your belief in them? If we exist by chance there’s no reason why we have any rights whatsoever - or for anything…

I said I believed they were not nonsense. I do not know them top to bottom, so I can’t really say that I have a “belief” in them. I never said we exist by chance. I’m a believer in God, but I question many of the teachings of the Bible and the church. Even if I didn’t believe in God, I don’t see how a person couldn’t have morals? Why does a baby cry? Why do people feel sorry for others? Why do people help others? I don’t think they think about God when doing them. I hope they aren’t just doing good things to improve their standing with God, that would seem a bit selfish.

 

[tonyrey]

I said I believed they were not nonsense. I do not know them top to bottom, so I can’t really say that I have a “belief” in them. I never said we exist by chance. I’m a believer in God, but I question many of the teachings of the Bible and the church. Even if I didn’t believe in God, I don’t see how a person couldn’t have morals? Why does a baby cry? Why do people feel sorry for others? Why do people help others? I don’t think they think about God when doing them. I hope they aren’t just doing good things to improve their standing with God, that would seem a bit selfish.

I’m delighted you believe in God. Everything else is less important although if we don’t believe in free will there’s not much point in believing in God. I agree that just doing good things to improve our standing with God is selfish. It amounts to cupboard love…

But to believe God is “a major murderer” is more akin to atheism than Christian belief that He is Love. Death is not intrinsically evil.

 

[Vonsalza]

Actually… to every rational person.

So a “No True Scotsman” fallacy lies at the core of your rhetoric?

Classic Vera. :sad_yes:

Then you are not rational. (Bless your heart! )

This is either another case of the above, or you don’t know what “rational” means. It really could go either way.

Maybe you could think about the obvious suffering experienced by teething infants, and attempt to figure out why that very bad physical pain is “necessary”. We are waiting.

I only forward that suffering “is”.

Your assumed view that “pain equals suffering and that both are unnecessary” is a view that does not enjoy any real proof - you just think it sounds nice. Hey, fair enough.

But the default position is “undefined”, whether you like it or not. You haven’t proven this claim and your insistence that it be treated as “default” reeks of the religiosity that you otherwise claim to eschew.

The irony is not lost on us.

 

[Vonsalza]

I think we disagree on how he handles it.

fingers crossed
Hopefully we would agree that our perspectives either way are completely irrelevant to the reality of the thing.

What if he disagrees with the way the church teaches it?

The Church is his voice of revelation. That’s like saying that a man disagrees with what his lips say.

…how can you not think burning and torturing someone forever evil?

The judge decrees it as justice. You think the sentenced generally agree with the verdict and sentence?

Disagree it’s not free will if it’s not my will.

Then we differ at an axiomatic level. I didn’t choose where I was born. I am largely responsible for what comes after. “Free will” to me.

That there isn’t a test? Don’t think I agreed to that? You don’t believe the book of Job?

Oh, you think everyone experiences that scenario identically?

You know my agrument is that the degree of suffering needs to be equal in order to have perfect justice, I’ve stated that many times.

I know, it’s just a useless argument. You can’t measure suffering and justice so as to balance them. Additionally, you’re incapable and unqualified to do it, as you’re not God. You’d lack complete info about whomever was being judged and punished.

You said that free moral agency is the mechanism that gave rise to suffering. So if it exists in heaven, suffering can then exist in heaven?

I have no idea what heaven will be like. I don’t know to what extent that this agency persists after glorification.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So a “No True Scotsman” fallacy lies at the core of your rhetoric?

Actually, my foundation is the Forrest Gump observation: “Stupid is as stupid does”. And that is another true observation, which is accepted by almost everyone… except, of course, by the stupid ones.

Bless your heart!

 

[Aloysium]

Is it stupid to misinterpret “stupid is as stupid does” as being a way to identify stupid people, rather than a statement that there are no stupid people, merely stupid acts?

 

[Vonsalza]

Actually, my foundation is the Forrest Gump observation…

…and at that, my point has been sufficiently made.

On all things scientific and philosophical, the the ultimate default is “undefined”. As such, suffering can only be unnecessary when you can prove its unnecessary.

Now, this doesn’t mean that suffering gets to be necessary by default.

“But Vonsalza! If it’s not one part of the dichotomy, then it must be the other!”

No, Vera. It is undefined until you can prove it either way because the dichotomy itself may actually be false.

C’mon back when you’ve internalized all that.

 

[laylow]

I’m delighted you believe in God. Everything else is less important although if we don’t believe in free will there’s not much point in believing in God. I agree that just doing good things to improve our standing with God is selfish. It amounts to cupboard love…

But to believe God is “a major murderer” is more akin to atheism than Christian belief that He is Love. Death is not intrinsically evil.

So you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe?

 

[Vonsalza]

So you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe?

In fairness, Laylow, this is a pretty loaded question. First, it could be assuming that you interpret scripture the same as other people and that your interpretation should be given priority.

If you don’t believe in the concept of “corporate justice”, then some parts of the OT do paint God as being unfair. However, if one does believe in corporate justice, then those same passages become exemplary of the concept. It might be worth noting that it appears God does believe in the concept, if He exists.

So it may not be a question of belief but rather a question of interpretation. Sorry to “muddy the waters”.

Note: Corporate justice - We sin as a body of people and are punished as a body of people.

 

[BobCatholic]

.

Note: Corporate justice - We sin as a body of people and are punished as a body of people.

And except for the select few, we can only have a corporate relationship with God. The select few can have a personal relationship with God. This is part of the corporate justice.

 

[Vonsalza]

And except for the select few, we can only have a corporate relationship with God. The select few can have a personal relationship with God. This is part of the corporate justice.

Not sure I’m 100% with you on that… I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive.

 

[BobCatholic]

Not sure I’m 100% with you on that… I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive.

Well, I know for sure I am not allowed to have a personal relationship with God. I can only have a corporate relationship with God. Every attempt I’ve made to get closer to God has failed.

The Church says that prayer is a personal relationship with God. To me, prayer is a monologue. God does not talk back and does not care about the temporal, only cares about the spiritual.

I never said they’re mutually exclusive. Those who have a personal relationship with God also have a corporate relationship with God as well. However, it is not the other way around, at least for me.

 

[o_mlly]

Maybe you need to be tested more severely as Job was.

Maybe.

He complained, he questioned, he demanded an answer. He is wrong to wail?

Yes. Job says so himself.
Therefore I disown what I have said,
And repent in dust and ashes
Did you read the book or just scan Ehrman’s commentary?

No, he was given the opportunity to speak with God.

No, he was given the opportunity to listen to God.

I don’t see that afforded to anyone else.

When was the last time you prayed? When did you stop?