Why don't the ends justify the means but God can permit evil to draw out a greater good?

[oldcelt]

The positive purpose of suffering is that it teaches us how to live, so that we may pass these teachings to the generations to come.

Without suffering one cannot fully enjoy life. Suffering is key to the balance of life. In order to learn we must suffer a consequence of a action whether the action be from you or from others.

Life is what you make of it.

Just what is this loving, merciful God teaching to children…infants even?
On this notion of suffering being for the good I am proud to stand with the Catholics who never let that indoctrination take. Thankfully, I believe in a much more loving God than that.
The only thing positive that I can think of suffering teaching is that life is dangerous, so avoid all the suffering you can. If you can’t avoid it, ask for the opiates.

 

[PRmerger]

Or so you have convinced yourself.

The above in no way is any refutation of the Christian paradigm.

If there is some sort of philosophical argument, or scientific evidence or reasoned approach you can make that offers any kind of objection to the Christian position, we can discuss.

As it is, you have no other means of rebuttal.

In fact, what you have done is created a god after your own image, not one that conforms to truth.

And you have created a world in which suffering has no meaning.

And you have no answer for this suffering.

 

[PRmerger]

Just what is this loving, merciful God teaching to children…infants even?
On this notion of suffering being for the good I am proud to stand with the Catholics who never let that indoctrination take. Thankfully, I believe in a much more loving God than that.
The only thing positive that I can think of suffering teaching is that life is dangerous, so avoid all the suffering you can. If you can’t avoid it, ask for the opiates.

The fact that you don’t like that God allows suffering is not an argument, at all, that it isn’t true.

It’s like a child saying, “I don’t like the fact that you allowed me to get stuck by 5 needles today. Therefore, you don’t love me!”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Just what is this loving, merciful God teaching to children…infants even?
On this notion of suffering being for the good I am proud to stand with the Catholics who never let that indoctrination take. Thankfully, I believe in a much more loving God than that.

I am not clear how a deist conception of God can be called “loving” since God, on your view takes absolutely no interest in what is happening to humanity. Disinterested or ambivalent perhaps, but not loving by any stretch.

The only thing positive that I can think of suffering teaching is that life is dangerous, so avoid all the suffering you can. If you can’t avoid it, ask for the opiates.

The Christian concept of suffering is that love will often entail suffering and sacrifice of comfort in a fallen world. Christ did not turn his back on creation but infused himself into the depths of it and accepted whatever suffering that entailed. He did not run or flee from it but courageously faced it. Flight or fight were not alternatives but rising above suffering by facing it and going through it in fulfillment and completion of what loving concern for others brings on,

A love that avoids, flees from or will not tolerate suffering for the sake of the one loved is not love. This is the kind of love showed by God in Christ - that love will always act for the good of the beloved is not subject to conditionals about inconvenience or freedom from pain or anguish.

 

[oldcelt]

The fact that you don’t like that God allows suffering is not an argument, at all, that it isn’t true.

It’s like a child saying, "I don’t like the fact that you allowed me to get stuck by 5 needles today. Therefore, you don’t love me!"

No fresh material.

 

[oldcelt]

I am not clear how a deist conception of God can be called “loving” since God, on your view takes absolutely no interest in what is happening to humanity. Disinterested or ambivalent perhaps, but not loving by any stretch.

The Christian concept of suffering is that love will often entail suffering and sacrifice of comfort in a fallen world. Christ did not turn his back on creation but infused himself into the depths of it and accepted whatever suffering that entailed. He did not run or flee from it but courageously faced it. Flight or fight were not alternatives but rising above suffering by facing it and going through it in fulfillment and completion of what loving concern for others brings on,

A love that avoids, flees from or will not tolerate suffering for the sake of the one loved is not love. This is the kind of love showed by God in Christ - that love will always act for the good of the beloved is not subject to conditionals about inconvenience or freedom from pain or anguish.

As I said before, you and others have convinced yourself that your version of God is loving by permitting the types of suffering that I have personally witnessed. I don’t, never have, even when I was a wee lad kneeling before the image of Christ in St. Leo Magnus Church. I could tell then who was truly loving and who was not.

What we have is an irreconcilable difference of opinion. I, as a Deist, would prefer to be left alone and tolerate the suffering inherent with life rather than to try to somehow twist that in to love. The things I have read over and over in the Christian Holy Books and writings have convinced me of something quite different than the God you and others here envision.

I love God, isn’t that enough?

 

[PRmerger]

No fresh material.

I say nothing new that wasn’t already Spoken.
You are correct in that.

Now, if you could offer any refutations or rebuttala, then we could dialogue.

There is no love without suffering and sacrifice.

Any parent can tell you that.

 

[Bradski]

There is no love without suffering and sacrifice.

Any parent can tell you that.

Indeed, it would seem odd. No ying without a yang. No pleasure without pain. My grandad used to say that if losing didn’t seem so bad that winning wouldn’t feel so good.

But wasn’t it suggested earlier that the ends can indeed justify the means? People in lifeboats and such. The bad guy is thrown overboard to save the good guys.

 

[oldcelt]

I say nothing new that wasn’t already Spoken.
You are correct in that.

Now, if you could offer any refutations or rebuttala, then we could dialogue.

**There is no love without suffering and sacrifice.

Any parent can tell you that.**

And any parent that I have ever known would stop that suffering in an instant if they could. The Christian version of God can…but according to most Christians doesn’t.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And any parent that I have ever known would stop that suffering in an instant if they could. The Christian version of God can…but according to most Christians doesn’t.

This seems a simplistic assessment of suffering. The question relates to the point or purpose of pain and suffering. In nature, pain is a signal that injury has occurred and will continue to worsen if the same course of action is continued. Are you saying that a good God would not have included pain in the repertoire of human experiences?

Suffering is similar to pain but also extends away from physical existence into emotive or relational realms. Are you claiming a good God would not signal (using pain and suffering) to rational moral agents that potentially harmful physiological, psychological or social courses of action are being taken?

In fact, some human beings do have a condition called congenital analgesia where no pain is felt due to sensory system dysfunction. The result is frequent but unintentional infliction of self harm such as biting off the tip of the tongue, bone fractures, and injuries to eyes, face and hands. Pain, and, by extension, suffering, serves a purpose. It helps to signal and prevent greater harm.

It is not clear to me that a good God would be a moral monster merely for allowing pain and suffering to be a part of creation. It seems to me that both of these tend to add gravitas and meaning to our experiences and serve to motivate us to look deeper into the reality of things. Otherwise, we would tend to live vicariously or virtually. I would go so far as to say that it is the lack of tolerance we have for pain and suffering that makes modern culture and the addictive personalities that populate and influence it so superficial.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Indeed, it would seem odd. No ying without a yang. No pleasure without pain. My grandad used to say that if losing didn’t seem so bad that winning wouldn’t feel so good.

But wasn’t it suggested earlier that the ends can indeed justify the means? People in lifeboats and such. The bad guy is thrown overboard to save the good guys.

The question for you, it would seem, is “Would you throw yourself from the lifeboat to save the good guys if you were the discernibly ‘bad’ guy in the group?” Your understanding of justice would seem to demand that.

The next question would appear to be the uniquely Christian one of whether you would throw yourself into the water to save the others in the life boat even if you weren’t the discernibly ‘bad’ guy. Recall the example of Fr. Maximilian Kolbe.

 

[tonyrey]

And any parent that I have ever known would stop that suffering in an instant if they could. The Christian version of God can…but according to most Christians doesn’t.

**No one has ever produced a feasible blueprint of an earthly Utopia.

Even though suffering is sometimes pointless it can be transformed into a blessing. Why do people endure needless pain and hardship to climb mountains and achieve world records? The reason is obvious: it demonstrates nobility of character and strength of will. A person who has never suffered cannot fully appreciate life. Jesus chose to be scourged and crucified to demonstrate the power of unselfish love and liberate us from our ignorance, weakness and selfishness. In practice you don’t live like a deist**, John: you follow His teaching and try to make this a better world for everyone - unlike those who don’t believe we all have equal rights!

 

[oldcelt]

**No one has ever produced a feasible blueprint of an earthly Utopia.

Even though suffering is sometimes pointless it can be transformed into a blessing. Why do people endure needless pain and hardship to climb mountains and achieve world records? The reason is obvious: it demonstrates nobility of character and strength of will. A person who has never suffered cannot fully appreciate life. Jesus chose to be scourged and crucified to demonstrate the power of unselfish love and liberate us from our ignorance, weakness and selfishness. In practice you don’t live like a deist**, John: you follow His teaching and try to make this a better world for everyone - unlike those who don’t believe we all have equal rights!

Thomas More tried…then went about trying to ensure that everyone thought like him.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Thomas More tried…then went about trying to ensure that everyone thought like him.

In that respect he is no different from gay activists, communists or modern libertarians.

The important question is: Which has the best, most compelling and most clearly coherent notion of utopia?

 

[PRmerger]

And any parent that I have ever known would stop that suffering in an instant if they could.

I take it you don’t immunize your children, then?

And if your child is dehydrated you wouldn’t permit the nursing staff to stick an IV in her vein?

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed, it would seem odd. No ying without a yang. No pleasure without pain. My grandad used to say that if losing didn’t seem so bad that winning wouldn’t feel so good.

Very Catholic, this!

 

[PRmerger]

I love God, isn’t that enough?

One has to wonder how your spouse would react to that question, if you posed that to her (him)?

One would think the response would be, 'Um…no. You can’t love me if you don’t do anything except say, ‘Hey. I said I loved you. What more do you want???’ "

And one has to have a true image of God in order to love Him. One cannot create a false image of God and say, “This is the god that I want to love because I like this one so much better!”

That would be like telling your wife, “I don’t really like so much the demands that you make on me. So I am going to create a new image of you. And this is who I’m going to love!:”

 

[Bradski]

The question for you, it would seem, is “Would you throw yourself from the lifeboat to save the good guys if you were the discernibly ‘bad’ guy in the group?” Your understanding of justice would seem to demand that.

The next question would appear to be the uniquely Christian one of whether you would throw yourself into the water to save the others in the life boat even if you weren’t the discernibly ‘bad’ guy. Recall the example of Fr. Maximilian Kolbe.

But the means to an end is meant to be an evil one. Why does God seem to be able to do or to allow something that appears to be wrong to, as it says in the first post, draw out a greater good?

Kolbe didn’t do anything wrong. He is held up as an example of doing something good. But throwing Mengele out could be considered wrong.

Let’s say that Kolbe is the only one in the lifeboat who has any sailing skills. If he throws himself overboard (how honourable!) then they’re all going to die. But someone has to go. What sort of argument could anyone mount that doesn’t say that Max doesn’t tip Mengele over the side?

 

[tonyrey]

  		***No one has ever produced a feasible blueprint of an earthly Utopia.

He lived in a time of persecution and was understandably concerned about the consequences of false beliefs, particularly those of King Henry VIII…

 

[PRmerger]

But the means to an end is meant to be an evil one. Why does God seem to be able to do or to allow something that appears to be wrong to, as it says in the first post, draw out a greater good?

Can you give a specific example of God doing something that appears to be wrong?