R
reconman
Guest
Good points, hard to argue with to be sure.
What you feel is the meaning of brutal and senseless suffering?
- Status
SanctusPeccator
Member
Certainly…if one views the situation solely from a naturalistic viewpoint. From the supernatural perspective, Job’s steadfast endurance enabled him to transcend the limited confines of human suffering. How else would this explain the torturous exploits of the kaihōgyō at Mount Hiei?
Reality accounts for more than the material substratum of physical existence. Paradox invites the pilgrim to elevate beyond our intellectual limitations to enter the (previously) undetected dimensions of spiritual existence.Yes I know paradox is a wonderful ‘explanation’ in spirituality. It’s in reality that it doesn’t work!
SanctusPeccator
Member
Except Hokomai seemingly fails to recognize paradox is not the opposite of an explanation? It’s reframing the mystery within the more advanced parameters of mystical theology. The suffering Saint John of the Cross willfully endured manifests the transformation to move beyond the conceptual limits of Scholasticism to the experiential love of the unitive way.
H
Hokomai
Guest
I understand that people have feelings, and use words in a poetic way to describe them. I do not mean this to be in any way offensive, and I apologize if it reads that way, but I cannot see that the last two sentences have any meaning. I may well be wrong, and please correct me. But how exactly can a mystery be ‘framed’ in the sense of ‘put in context’, the usual meaning of ‘framed’, let alone ‘reframed’? How can a parameter advance into something mystical? Is ‘the experiential love of the unitive way’ a noun clause that refers to anything real?.
To me the issue at hand boils down to: if God is all loving and all powerful, and inspired scripture, these qualities should be seen there. They are not. If he is these things, he would have either prevented innocents suffering, or allowed us to understand exactly why this is a good thing. He has not. This would allow the earlier poster who thanks God for her own suffering to answer my challenge about why she does not also thank God for the suffering of innocent babies. If you have faith that it is good, why do you not offer thanks for it?
SanctusPeccator
Member
“Reframing” involves supernaturally observing the terrestrial defeat of a crucified criminal as a celestial victory over the spiritual death of Original Sin.
Without the supernatural ability of sanctifying grace, it proves sadly impossible to experientially detect the invisible wavelengths of the Divine Spectrum [of Infinite Love] permeating throughout all of creation.
H
Hokomai
Guest
:doh2:I should have thought of that!
R
reconman
Guest
Some gift, huh?
It can’t be. It’s a false argument. If sin causes suffering, then why are some little babies and small children stricken with horrible disease, or famine, or war etc… while others are not?how can this be thensince God cant give us or create sin
The only possible answer is that God does not care who suffers and who does not.
C
casimiri
Guest
My research has led me to understand that every single item on this list was and is done by the exact same group of people throughout history. When I found a copy of the Talmud on the internet a few years back, and read it, I realized that the Talmud instructs the
Askenazi Rabbis to do these sorts of things to anyone who is a ‘non-jew’. It allows child molestation and demands that all these horrors be done in a way that is ‘unperceived’’ or else God is not pleased with the offering. I have a list of some pretty horrifying quotes from this book that would shock people. The sad part is that the people who have been controlling our nation and our world through ‘banking’ (with our stolen money) are of this ‘religion’. It is actually satanism. Michael A. Hoffman II has delved into this subject on his website revisionisthistory.org . The number of Christians who support this veiled satanism is saddening. They are misled and need to read the uncensored Talmud but they don’t. This Talmud and the people who follow it are not the Hebrew Tribe of Judah, but they are Khazarian. The is the synagague of Satan, those who say they are jews but are not. They lie. The weed and the wheat grow together for a time. But then there comes the End of Time and the reaper separates the wheat from the chaff. Meanwhile, we are to wait with patience and hopeful expectation, maintaining our own purity and not questioning God’s ways.
A
andremiguel
Guest
Thanks.
A
andremiguel
Guest
A
andremiguel
Guest
In the liturgy of Easter’s Eve, it says: “Wonderful (is it wonderful???) sin of Adam that gave us such a Magnificent Savior, Jesus Christ”
H
Hokomai
Guest
In my view the most suitable explanation, which fits all facts, is that there is no God, at least, not one of the Jewish or Christian type.
SanctusPeccator
Member
While the objective facts are not in dispute, our subjective perceptions are often egregiously inaccurate due to the restricted frame of reference. One can either pessimistically survey the wasteland or they can choose to elevate their gaze and observe beyond: “Two people looked out through prison bars; one saw mud and the other saw stars.”
SanctusPeccator
Member
Yes, during the Exultet: “O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!”
A
andremiguel
Guest
There are 2 hypothesis:
- there is no God, your explanation. It solves all problems, except one: what are you going to do after death?
- There is a God but we cannot find the answer for suffering. This is my choice but makes me suffer.
H
Hokomai
Guest
The question: 'what are you going to do after you die" is an example of ‘question-begging’, as my conclusion is that there will be no ‘me’ after I die, if indeed ‘I die’ is a meaningful idea, and not a product of the fact I must view things from a brain trapped in a body. I am not sure I understand why your hypothesis ‘makes you suffer’. If there is a Lord, he maketh the suffering to fall alike on the believer and non-believer.
G
gabjus
Guest
Were you able to find convincing answers from other sources then? The problem of suffering (esp the innocent suffering) is something all humans will have to wrestle with. The bible that addresses the issue of suffering from a few different angles.
- Retributive suffering: one suffers cos of sin - this is the most straightforward n can be seen time and again, however, this should NOT (apologies for the previous typo) be the ONLY answer to suffering. We cannot accuse say a baby born with physical or mental impairment of suffering because of their own sin. Jesus made it clear when he answered in John 9 "Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” Eccl cautious us to not apply this indiscriminately, since there are times that the wicked prosper. It could also be a combination of the below.
- Redemptive suffering: one suffers for a greater good. - this is common found in the lives of prophets, and I believe (in a sense) is a calling for all Christians to do. Note that Jesus himself set the example of redemptive suffering.
- Educative suffering: one suffers to learn something (Elihu in the book of Job talks about this). - Again, I would apply this with caution, since obviously it doesn’t apply.
I think one of the best books to address the problem of suffering is the book of Job.
It teaches us that while sin always leads to suffering, one cannot conclude the converse, ie suffering is always because of sin. While the book of Job does not exactly give us the answer of suffering, it does highlight 2 things:
- In the midst of our own suffering, we have the assurance of that God is still in control.
- In the midst of other people’s suffering, what they really is not answers, but presence. A Christian is to provide comfort through his/her presence, and to bring God’s presence, because ultimately, it is presence and not answers that gives comfort for a sufferer. A Christian is a Christian not because of what he/she knows, but who he/she knows.
Hope this is helpful. (P.S. I think all people struggle with this issue as long as suffering itself exist)
H
Hokomai
Guest
Thanks for explaining that; most interesting. This does not address the issue of non-human suffering. How could a loving God inflict such pain and misery on animals, long before there were any people to sin? I read Job in a different way, which I hope does not cause offense, as it is based on the plain meaning of the story told: the book makes clear that God causes suffering for no particular purpose, or worse, simply as an experiment. What God did to Job would be banned in the world today were it to be attempted in a classroom on a rat. A particularly vile action attributed to God was the killing of Job’s 10 children. Possibly more vile still was God’s later action in ‘replacing’ them, as if he could. While there may be inspiration in Job’s reaction to suffering, the background story, of an abusive and uncaring God, concerned only with his own pride, and flaunting his power, cannot in my view give any comfort to one who seeks a loving, or caring God. In fact, I have found that most Christians, including Catholics will resort to distinguishing the "God of the Old Testament’ from that of the New, as if they were entirely different people. when this is pointed out, we are back to ‘mystery’.
G
gabjus
Guest
I admit what I wrote did not address non-human suffering. Perhaps books on animal protection would address that. Such books does not give answers on why animals suffer, but provide suggestions for humans to do to help lessen it. The Bible in a sense does that as well. However, if I were forced to give an answer, I would say that it is because of the reality that when one does something wrong, others are affected. That is the nature of sin (and a lot of other things), it spreads.
No offence taken.
Job is not the only book written in this manner that addresses the question of suffering. So it is likely a book that does (although not by providing answers). It is a book that teaches the reader what to do amidst suffering, rather than provide answers for it. On a side note, God did not ‘replace’ Job’s children, nor did he killed them (but that is another long discussion).The short answer of this is: Just as people act/react differently to different circumstances (let’s say hypothetically the person remains exactly the same), God does too. It is not being inconstant just like you would not say a person that does so inconstant.
This is just my view (which might change or develop over time) in my very limited knowledge. But I hope it was helpful.
H
Hokomai
Guest
The problem with this is that there were animals for billions of years before people were around to sin. It is simply not possible that an all-loving all-powerful God could allow such suffering as we see in the fossil record to occur. Animals have, according to Catholic teaching, no immortal souls, so there can be no compensation. And they are innocent. It is also not conceivable that an all-knowing God who communicates with people would not explain these points, were he to be there, and were there to be an explanation. remember we are talking about a God that thought it worthwhile to pass on the information, through the church, that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven, and a 14-year-old boy can go to hell for masturbating,and that the Father and son are consubstantial as distinct from ‘one in being’. It is simply inconceivable that a God who would bother to explain that would not address the issue of suffering in a way which could be understood. In my view this single issue is the greatest weakness of Christianity and the many writings on ‘the problem of pain’ manage to sidestep the tough questions in favour of advice on how to feel OK about suffering.
- Status