The Purpose of Suffering

[quandy57]

Many people have trouble wrapping their heads around suffering and why an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent God would allow suffering, especially a seemingly pointless form.

First, we have to realize all of what God made was good. God gave angels free will. and when Lucifer (a Seraph Angel) saw that God was planning on becoming man, Lucifer’s pride led him to fall. This fall led him to complete rejection of God. He made it his mission to destroy humans, which he believed should not have been made in the Image of God. This led to the fall of humans. God made humanity, wanting it to be a community, therefore, what we do can and will affect others around us. The first sin hurt humanity and all of its offspring (you might think it is unfair, but just as you can do good for others, you can do wrong). This led to corruption and therefore a lot of suffering is caused by sin (the rejection of God).

Second, we have to understand God’s plan. God does not will evil! He simply allows it! Why would He allow suffering such as death at birth, sickness, disease, and so many more types that seem pointless and plain evil? Why would He let animals suffer even before humans sinned?

Many theologists will give possible reasons such as to allow for virtuous people. I realize many people have trouble accepting this. Try thinking about it a different way. We feel pain so that we know when something is endangering us. Suffering works a similar way, when we suffer, we realize that something is off and so we are called to act. But why allow such things to happen in the first place? Simple to train us, so that we know, when we fall, we can get back up.

Christians, especially Catholics, understand that a drop of Jesus’ blood was enough to save the world. Why would Jesus decide to allow Himself to die then? Isn’t that unnecessary suffering? Jesus allowed that, knowing He can bring greater good from even the worst thing imaginable. HUMANS KILLED GOD! AND GOD USED THAT TO SAVE HUMANS?! It just doesn’t make sense to our imperfect minds of how He could love us so much.

Why did He wait so long to do so? Well, to build up to it, God knows best, and He knew that if He waited, we would be more willing to accept His love. He doesn’t do this for His own sake; He does it for ours.

Why doesn’t He reveal Himself to everyone? He did, through Jesus, and you might not like that, but understand that just as He gives us the ability to investigate the natural, and travel the journey of science, He also wants us to investigate the supernatural, and travel the journey of faith. Faith is beautiful!

Suffering may seem pointless until we unite our suffering with the suffering of God’s.

Sure, we don’t understand any of this completely, so yes, you should continue to question it. But allow yourself to contemplate something greater, God loves you; He died for you.

 

[thistle]

Peter Kreeft has an excellent book called Making Sense Out Of Suffering.

 

[animalis]

Catholics look at sufferings as an opportunity, because by the cross the doors are opened. Suffering is a door, much like the heart of Jesus is a door (cf. Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen), and scripture is a door (cf. St. John Chrysostom). Saint Basil says God is one, and in the world we have plurality. These doors are however one door.

In the Church liturgy, we proclaim, Ave Crux, Spes Unica — Hail the Cross, Our Only Hope
St. Paul says “we are saved by hope.” (Rom 8:24) We believe our sufferings may in patience assent to the resurrection of humanity. Now we praise righteous suffering (suffering in virtuous patience). Therefore, in heaven, every evil we had undergone is worth and value. For we will stand to the praise of God in the Liturgy of heaven. Suffering is an opportunity to “partake of the divine nature” (2 pet 1:4). Suffering is necessary. Or else, we go to destruction with the corruption of the world.

Another term to express predestination is God’s purpose (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas). The purpose of suffering is the purpose in order to enter heaven.

 

[po18guy]

Peter Kreeft has an excellent book called Making Sense Out Of Suffering.

Indeed! Excellent book. As another resource, Fr. Benedict Groeschel† also wrote a book entitled Arise from Darkness, which addreses many of the same issues. Rather than allowing suffering to defeat us, it is how we are more closely bonded to our suffering Lord. The great Saints enjoyed suffering for their love of God. We are called to do no less.

 

[thistle]

Indeed! Excellent book. As another resource, Fr. Benedict Groeschel† also wrote a book entitled Arise from Darkness, which addreses many of the same issues. Rather than allowing suffering to defeat us, it is how we are more closely bonded to our suffering Lord. The great Saints enjoyed suffering for their love of God. We are called to do no less.

I also agree about Arise From Darkness. I have that too.

 

[GEddie]

We just have to admit that there may be no** discernible **reason for it, and exercise faith.

ICXC NIKA

 

[po18guy]

We know that God chastises whom He loves. I find great comfort in a single verse: Tobit 12:13

(Knox) “Then, because thou hadst won his favour, needs must that trials should come, and test thy worth.”

(Douay-Rheims): “And because thou wast acceptable to God, it was necessary that temptation should prove thee.”

I ponder that. “Acceptable to God”. Don’t we test even the fruits and vegetables we purchase at the market? How much more valuable are we to God! Along with that high value comes a high degree of testing - which is a blessing unto us.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

We just have to admit that there may be no** discernible **reason for it, and exercise faith.

Very true! And since there is no discernible reason, the faith is simply blind faith. If there would be a rational explanation, we would not need faith.

No apologist, philosopher or theologian could ever come up with a rational explanation for the problem of evil (suffering). There are a few generic attempts: 1) the free will defense, 2) the greater good defense, 3) the outright denial or downplay of suffering or some combination of the above. None of them works “as intended”.

 

[quandy57]

Very true! And since there is no discernible reason, the faith is simply blind faith. If there would be a rational explanation, we would not need faith.

No apologist, philosopher or theologian could ever come up with a rational explanation for the problem of evil (suffering). There are a few generic attempts: 1) the free will defense, 2) the greater good defense, 3) the outright denial or downplay of suffering or some combination of the above. None of them works “as intended”.

Our knowledge is limited. Does not make it blind faith. Free Will only defends sinful suffering. The greater Good defends only what God can do with it. We have possible reasons for why He might allow suffering based upon what we do know about Him. The intention is always hope. Our intention is met.

Jesus existed at a time in history, therefore it not blind faith, but it is faith.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Our knowledge is limited. Does not make it blind faith. Free Will only defends sinful suffering. The greater Good defends only what God can do with it. We have possible reasons for why He might allow suffering based upon what we do know about Him. The intention is always hope. Our intention is met.

Jesus existed at a time in history, therefore it not blind faith, but it is faith.

As GEddie correctly observed: there is no “discernible reason” for the suffering. Without reason the faith is always “blind”.

 

[quandy57]

As GEddie correctly observed: there is no “discernible reason” for the suffering. Without reason the faith is always “blind”.

There are DISCERNIBLE reasons for it. Sometimes we might be unable to discern it, but many times we can. It is not blind faith. We might not always understand or be able to discern exactly why we suffer in the first place, but we always know that when we link it to the sufferings of Christ on the Cross, it can be made Good through the love of God.

 

[GEddie]

There are DISCERNIBLE reasons for it. Sometimes we might be unable to discern it, but many times we can. It is not blind faith. We might not always understand or be able to discern exactly why we suffer in the first place, but we always know that when we link it to the sufferings of Christ on the Cross, it can be made Good through the love of God.

If discernment is impossible, then in that instance there is no “discernible” reason.

ICXC NIKA

 

[quandy57]

If discernment is impossible, then in that instance there is no “discernible” reason.

ICXC NIKA

who said discernment was impossible?

There is also a difference between the discerned reason with certainty and a few possible discerned reasons. We might not know for sure, but we definitely can discern reasons for suffering.

We know possible reasons. Do we know which is certain? Not exactly, but sometimes, under certain circumstances, we can almost certainly know the reason for that particular instance.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

who said discernment was impossible?

There is also a difference between the discerned reason with certainty and a few possible discerned reasons. We might not know for sure, but we definitely can discern reasons for suffering.

We know possible reasons. Do we know which is certain? Not exactly, but sometimes, under certain circumstances, we can almost certainly know the reason for that particular instance.

We are not talking about discerning reason for ONE particular instance of suffering. That might be easy. The question is discerning a rational and plausible reason for ALL sufferings. After all God is supposed to be OMNI-benevolent, so there cannot be even ONE instance of unnecessary suffering. The examples are endless. One can question the suffering of all the animals. But the real kicker is the suffering of EVERY human toddler, during the time of teething. It is not logically necessary that the teeth must force their way out through the gums. Teething is the quintessential unnecessary suffering.

The usual attempt from the apologist is: “how do you know that a particular suffering (teething) does NOT serve a higher purpose?” This is, of course, a stupid question. It is not the job of the skeptic to try to find an excuse. It is the job of the apologist to explain the reason for any specific suffering. The existence of even ONE example of unnecessary suffering proves that God is NOT Omni-benevolent.

 

[quandy57]

There are 2 things here:

The usual attempt from the apologist is: “how do you know that a particular suffering (teething) does NOT serve a higher purpose?” This is, of course, a stupid question. It is not the job of the skeptic to try to find an excuse. It is the job of the apologist to explain the reason for any specific suffering. The existence of even ONE example of unnecessary suffering proves that God is NOT Omni-benevolent.

If the skeptic wants to prove God is NOT Omni-benevolent, then, yes he does have to prove that his example actually does that. The existence of even ONE example of unnecessary suffering does not prove that God is not Omni-benevolent, you would have to prove that God is in some way evil, hence you have to prove that allowing suffering shows that he is in some way evil. If you can prove that God is in some way evil, even ONCE, then sure you prove He is not Omni-benevolent. But then your proof has to actually 100% prove that He is.

We are not talking about discerning reason for ONE particular instance of suffering. That might be easy. The question is discerning a rational and plausible reason for ALL sufferings. After all God is supposed to be OMNI-benevolent, so there cannot be even ONE instance of unnecessary suffering. The examples are endless. One can question the suffering of all the animals. But the real kicker is the suffering of EVERY human toddler, during the time of teething. It is not logically necessary that the teeth must force their way out through the gums. Teething is the quintessential unnecessary suffering.

We rationally know that All sufferings have to coincide with the fact that God is not Omni-benevolent. Simply allowing Evil does not prove that He is evil, you would have to prove that he does something evil. Sure, it seems that human toddlers suffer needlessly. Suffering allows us to know that we are not meant for earth, we are meant for heaven. Evil suffering only allows us to know that humans aren’t perfect, as we kind of have a reputation of being horrible sinners.

Not all suffering is evil though, some, like I said before, could happen in order to train us.

What I said though is: We know God is Omni-benevolent, because we know He is Good, what He makes is Good, and His plan is Good. God can’t be somewhat Good, He either is all Good or all Evil, but if He was all evil then He wouldn’t have died for us and he wouldn’t love us. We know that God is limitless in all of His qualities. Therefore, there logically has to be a reason He allows all suffering which sometimes we perceive to be unnecessary. I know that there always has to be reason. Sometimes my mind isn’t able to understand why a specific suffering exists, that doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The existence of even ONE example of unnecessary suffering does not prove that God is not Omni-benevolent, you would have to prove that God is in some way evil.

I wonder what your definition of “evil” might be. As far as I am concerned, ALLOWING unnecessary suffering IS evil.

 

[quandy57]

I wonder what your definition of “evil” might be. As far as I am concerned, ALLOWING unnecessary suffering IS evil.

Evil occurs when one fails to good; evil is a lack of goodness.

He allows unnecessary suffering. We perceive it to be unnecessary. Is it? Well only God knows. There is faith and there is hope that is needed. But it is not blind faith because blind presumes that there is nothing leading us to have faith, which is not the case. I know He exists and I know that He is all good, therefore I have faith and hope that He has reasons for what I might perceive to be unnecessary.

 

[quandy57]

You perceive allowing suffering to be irrational for an omniscient God. Does that make there be no good reason for it?
Well, no.

Pi is an irrational number. Mathematicians allow it for good reasons. But, it is the number that connects the diameter to the circumference. You can never fully know Pi, does that make it untrue? No. A circle has a diameter of 5cm if I multiply it by Pi, which is an unending number, I get the circumference. But, I can never fully complete the evaluating step, meaning I can never fully get the circumference. Does that mean the circumference doesn’t exist? No, it does not mean that. The distance around the circle has to exist. We can even go from a 15 cm circumference and go backward and we would have the same problem with the diameter.

Suffering seems irrational. We can never fully know all the possible reasons for allowing it. Does that mean it is evil? No. No matter how we put it into the equation, we never fully understand the outcome. Does that mean the good in it doesn’t exist? No, it doesn’t mean that. The Good has to exist in all that God does. That is where we get the greater good idea from all outcomes, that God can bring the greater good. We can even go backward and start at the result of suffering and we would have the same problem with understanding the reasoning. Yet, we still know there has to be a reason for a Good God to allow it.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Evil occurs when one fails to good; evil is a lack of goodness.

In that case, God fails to prevent suffering, and as such he is evil. QED

He allows unnecessary suffering. We perceive it to be unnecessary. Is it? Well only God knows.

Since God does not explain it to us, we use our reasoning, which says: “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and tastes like a duck. it is a duck and not an elephant”. If it looks like unnecessary suffering and no one can bring up an argument why it is necessary, then the only rational conclusion is that it IS unnecessary. If God would be so kind to come and correct us, that would be fine.

There is faith and there is hope that is needed. But it is not blind faith because blind presumes that there is nothing leading us to have faith, which is not the case. I know He exists and I know that He is all good, therefore I have faith and hope that He has reasons for what I might perceive to be unnecessary.

This is a circular argument. You can’t say: “Since God is all good, therefore everything that contradicts it must be discarded”. God’s benevolence cannot be a-priori stipulated.

---

Oh, and the word “irrational” has two meanings. One is “against reason” and the other one that a number cannot be expressed as “the division of one whole number with another whole number”. You confused the two meaning.

 

[quandy57]

You missed every point I made…

1. God allows evil, that does not mean he fails to do ALL GOOD, Evil suffering is brought through by sin, we are talking about nonevil suffering that seems unnecessary.
2. God does explain it to us. Through reasoning.

2-3) The basis is that God is all good, therefore ALL He does, MUST be good.

Can we agree the God we are referring to is limitless in all of His attributes, presuming he does exist therefore, he is either all good or all evil. We know He does good, therefore He must be ALL good. He cannot be lacking in good. Therefore we know as a result everything He does or allows must be a result of His goodness and must end in His goodness.

Now you want to prove the basis of God being All Good is a fallacy, therefore you must prove that God is evil in some way, knowing that He is limitless in all of His qualities.

I understand that sometimes we have a hard time seeing the good, but we can reason there must always be good in His work, in order for Him to exist at all.

1. My point by irrationality is that we don’t know all of what PI is, it will never take us where we need to go in a math problem. I use it as an analogy of suffering and faith (a not blind faith)

PI is a number that can never be fully known, fully understood, or even give a complete result when it is involved in the equation. Mathematicians allow it for good reasons. But, it is the number that connects the diameter to the circumference. You can never fully know PI, does that make it untrue? No. A circle has a diameter of 5cm if I multiply it by PI, which is an unending number, I get the circumference. But, I can never fully complete the evaluating step, meaning I can never fully get the circumference. Does that mean the circumference doesn’t exist? No, it does not mean that. The distance around the circle has to exist. We can even go from a 15 cm circumference and go backward and we would have the same problem with the diameter.

Suffering seems irrational. We can never fully know all the possible reasons for allowing it. Does that mean it is evil? No. No matter how we put it into the equation, we never fully understand the outcome. Does that mean the good in it doesn’t exist? No, it doesn’t mean that. The Good has to exist in all that God does. That is where we get the greater good idea from all outcomes, that God can bring the greater good. We can even go backward and start at the result of suffering and we would have the same problem with understanding the reasoning. Yet, we still know there has to be a reason for a Good God to allow it.