Do you think there is something beautiful in seeing............

People_Lack_Integrity said:

Why would suffering ever be beautiful, even if the person accepted it? Anyone who would view suffering as beautiful to me is sadistic, which is why I think Mother Theresa was evil.

Click to expand...

I think it would be difficult to see any value in suffering if one was an atheist or agnostic or of a religion which didn't see suffering as being capable of metaphysical/spiritual connection.

Having said that, I don't think suffering for anyone is beautiful, in any way, shape or form. The only person who has the right to see any value to their suffering should be the person who's doing the suffering.

Rawshak said:

Do you think there is something beautiful in seeing the way the poor accepted their suffering like Christ accepted his suffering?

Click to expand...

Yet another example of how Divine Command Theory perverts the innate moral compass. Thoughts like that are necessary if you believe that there is a good omni-God and you know that suffering occurs. The skeptic says, I don't know if a god exists that can prevent gratuitous suffering, but such a god would be sadistic if it did. The believer cannot go there, so, he says the suffering must be good and holy, and seeks to explain how. We generally hear either that suffering is a purifying process, or that the suffering was deserved, or that we couldn't know comfort without also knowing suffering, so its actually a helpful lesson. Let's consider each of these:

[1] Is suffering good and holy? They obviously convinced Mother Teresa of that, which is especially unfortunate given that she oversaw a collection of hospices, whose sole function is to provide comfort care and mitigate suffering. It was widely reported that she withheld adequate comfort care from them, undoubtedly because she thought that she was helping them in this way.

I have a background in hospice, where among other things, we study the barriers to giving adequate comfort care, such as regulatory agencies monitoring narcotic prescription and the belief that it is immoral to not do everything possible as long as the patient is still alive - the opposite of the goal in palliative care, which is to do nothing that increases discomfort. But the reason I mention it is that the belief that many religious patients had that they didn't deserve heaven or forgiveness as they were, and needed to undergo some cleansing ordeal that involved severe, prolonged suffering.

[2] Deserved is a good one, appearing in many Bible stories in which people are harmed. If a flood exterminated most most of humanity, it must have deserved it. Sodom and Gomorrah demolished? Must have been sinners.

[3] We have a dog that seems to know no fear. He never flinches or recoils, and never runs from the bottle rocket or thunder. He is happy to see visitors. The point is, he's never known fear. If we're to assume that a good god lets us suffer so that we can see how much better life is when it's over, should I terrify the dog so he knows what it's like to not be terrified (I know your answer - this question is for the person who makes that argument)? If that makes no sense to the apologist (or anybody else), neither does the other argument.

Rawshak said:

I think she loved poverty and suffering feeling it brought people closer to Jesus, she also told Hitchens,

“You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you.”

I think that is very weird.

Click to expand...

I think I can explain. Maybe she realized what I do: that shame, guilt and suffering often come together. For example it is now well known that children of divorced parents blame themselves. It is also true that persons in certain groups sometimes experience both personal shame and communal shame over things they can't control such as poverty.

This nun is someone who works for the well being of others, so what I think she's doing is not encouraging more suffering but is offering forgiveness to those who experience shame for their suffering. They must forgive themselves since they believe they are guilty. It is a Catholic teaching to forgive others, and she is a nun though a somewhat unorthodox one.

The combination of all bad feelings is a human trait which derives from how personalities form when we are infants. For an infant there is no awareness of why suffering happens, and so an infant must not be allowed to cry endlessly or be afraid or angry for too long. They associate suffering and self loathing together. If they are angry it is not at something specific but at all things including themselves. Either they are bad and the world is bad and everything is bad -- or everything is good and they are good and the world is good. A baby left unloved is in a precarious situation and is likely to have personality problems and problems balancing the various experiences they will encounter as adults. At an early age a human has to learn to differentiate pleasure and pain according to it cause, its location, its reason and many other factors -- both to respond intelligently and to feel what they ought to feel. They should not hate themselves when they feel angry at someone else or have any number of other unfortunate feelings.

To various degrees this is also true for adults. We can reason about our suffering, but guilt, shame and anger and fear all associate together in a paranoid part of our minds. Our feelings when negative color our perceptions of other things. This is also true in many families with ancient tribal traditions that believe that if you have problems it is a sign that you are deserving of them, even if you are born with problems such as physical illnesses.

So...I think what Theresa is doing has to do with that. People in poverty often feel shame and worse, and this is destructive and leads to self destruction. Its part of the human puzzle. Her approach, apparently, is to say that the suffering is not a punishment and is not shameful.

Rawshak said:

Do you think there is something beautiful in seeing the way the poor accepted their suffering like Christ accepted his suffering?

Full question above.

Interested in peoples reactions to this statement.

Click to expand...

It's not powerty and suffering itself that is beautiful but it's how some people deal with it. It just reveals the beauty in their heart.

Jesus on the cross also didn't say: Oh, this is so beautiful! I want some more!... His words were: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?! But it's beautiful to see/hear this: Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.

Rawshak said:

“There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion,” Mother Teresa said. “The world gains much from their suffering.”

Click to expand...

Would have gone over better had Mother Teresa utilized her own hospitals she's founded.

There's a beauty by example, not by proxy.

Rich man poor man is a fake human teaching.

Equal humans are humans and everything we needed we all owned and it was free.

So when an innocent human is harmed by the evil rich man he said he thought it spiritually moving to witness how actually loving humans are.

Seeing he decided his own spirituality devoid by his greedy wants.

As the real teaching rich men are liars.

Rawshak said:

Do you think there is something beautiful in seeing the way the poor accepted their suffering like Christ accepted his suffering?

Full question above.

Interested in peoples reactions to this statement.

Click to expand...

According the Bible, Jesus taught the reversal of hierarchy in the hereafter. So the poor will be very well.

No, it's incredibly tragic. Especially when that suffering can be abated, and those who preach that the poor should accept their lot in grace do so from multimillion churches and mansions that aren't even open to the public during disaster. Charlatans and snakes the lot of them.

It Aint Necessarily So said:

Yet another example of how Divine Command Theory perverts the innate moral compass. Thoughts like that are necessary if you believe that there is a good omni-God and you know that suffering occurs. The skeptic says, I don't know if a god exists that can prevent gratuitous suffering, but such a god would be sadistic if it did. The believer cannot go there, so, he says the suffering must be good and holy, and seeks to explain how. We generally hear either that suffering is a purifying process, or that the suffering was deserved, or that we couldn't know comfort without also knowing suffering, so its actually a helpful lesson. Let's consider each of these:

[1] Is suffering good and holy? They obviously convinced Mother Teresa of that, which is especially unfortunate given that she oversaw a collection of hospices, whose sole function is to provide comfort care and mitigate suffering. It was widely reported that she withheld adequate comfort care from them, undoubtedly because she thought that she was helping them in this way.

I have a background in hospice, where among other things, we study the barriers to giving adequate comfort care, such as regulatory agencies monitoring narcotic prescription and the belief that it is immoral to not do everything possible as long as the patient is still alive - the opposite of the goal in palliative care, which is to do nothing that increases discomfort. But the reason I mention it is that the belief that many religious patients had that they didn't deserve heaven or forgiveness as they were, and needed to undergo some cleansing ordeal that involved severe, prolonged suffering.

[2] Deserved is a good one, appearing in many Bible stories in which people are harmed. If a flood exterminated most most of humanity, it must have deserved it. Sodom and Gomorrah demolished? Must have been sinners.

[3] We have a dog that seems to know no fear. He never flinches or recoils, and never runs from the bottle rocket or thunder. He is happy to see visitors. The point is, he's never known fear. If we're to assume that a good god lets us suffer so that we can see how much better life is when it's over, should I terrify the dog so he knows what it's like to not be terrified (I know your answer - this question is for the person who makes that argument)? If that makes no sense to the apologist (or anybody else), neither does the other argument.

Click to expand...

Your post is yet another example of trying to make good look bad for the argument of bad is not good.

Rawshak said:

Saint Teresa of Calcutta would not agree with you.

Click to expand...

Well, she did not love the poor. She loved poverty.

Ciao

- viole

A friend of mine told me this story a while ago; he was going through a lot of personal upheaval, a very trying time when he was beset with family and financial difficulties. During this period, he went along to the North London Buddhist Centre in Holloway Road. A Japanese guy he had chatted with once or twice (whose English wasn't that good) approached my friend and greeted him with the words, " Ah, Mr W-------, I hear you have been suffering. Congratulations!"

There is no life without suffering.

Rawshak said:

Do you think there is something beautiful in seeing the way the poor accepted their suffering like Christ accepted his suffering?

Full question above.

Interested in peoples reactions to this statement.

Click to expand...

I see for them a great reward, as this passage would suggest.

".. They who are possessed of riches, however, must have the utmost regard for the poor, for great is the honor destined by God for those poor who are steadfast in patience. By My life! There is no honor, except what God may please to bestow, that can compare to this honor. Great is the blessedness awaiting the poor that endure patiently and conceal their sufferings, and well is it with the rich who bestow their riches on the needy and prefer them before themselves." – Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 229.

It is clear though, the rich should look after the poor.

" O children of dust! Tell the rich of the midnight sighing of the poor, lest heedlessness lead them into the path of destruction, and deprive them of the Tree of Wealth. To give and to be generous are attributes of Mine; well is it with him that adorneth himself with My virtues." – Baha’u’llah, The Hidden Words, p. 39.

Regards Tony

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

I see for them a great reward, as this passage would suggest.

".. They who are possessed of riches, however, must have the utmost regard for the poor, for great is the honor destined by God for those poor who are steadfast in patience. By My life! There is no honor, except what God may please to bestow, that can compare to this honor. Great is the blessedness awaiting the poor that endure patiently and conceal their sufferings, and well is it with the rich who bestow their riches on the needy and prefer them before themselves." – Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 229.

It is clear though, the rich should look after the poor.

" O children of dust! Tell the rich of the midnight sighing of the poor, lest heedlessness lead them into the path of destruction, and deprive them of the Tree of Wealth. To give and to be generous are attributes of Mine; well is it with him that adorneth himself with My virtues." – Baha’u’llah, The Hidden Words, p. 39.

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

How sad that all you can do is write meaningless words, the poor need help not promises from people who make claims of an afterlife that they do not know exists.

There is no beauty in the suffering of the poor, none.

Rawshak said:

How sad that all you can do is write meaningless words, the poor need help not promises from people who make claims of an afterlife that they do not know exists.

There is no beauty in the suffering of the poor, none.

Click to expand...

So you did not want to know what others thought, you just wanted to spit more anger about God, which is just an excuse not to face how we have failed each other as one human family.

That's OK, you are free to do that and we can both take a mental note, posts by Rawshak are just aimed to dish it out to God and Faith, they are not really questions. We have all been guilty of that.

You will know when I post it is naught but the love of God, which is inclusive of all those that suffer need an poverty.

All the best and Regards Tony

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

So you did not want to know what others thought, you just wanted to spit more anger about God, which is just an excuse not to face how we have failed each other as one human family.

That's OK, you are free to do that and we can both take a mental note, posts by Rawshak are just aimed to dish it out to God and Faith, they are not really questions. We have all been guilty of that.

You will know when I post it is naught but the love of God, which is inclusive of all those that suffer need an poverty.

All the best and Regards Tony

Click to expand...

From the two posts you responded to please show where I dished it out to god and faith, where from the post do I spit anger at god.Just where do you get your inferences from? Your response has nothing to with the simple question I asked.

Brickjectivity said:

So...I think what Theresa is doing has to do with that. People in poverty often feel shame and worse, and this is destructive and leads to self destruction. Its part of the human puzzle. Her approach, apparently, is to say that the suffering is not a punishment and is not shameful.

Click to expand...

You may be on to something here. In the context of her quote, in the screenshot I posted earlier it says, in part:

I could speculate that maybe that she was sharp enough 'read the room' at that particular moment in time, but I tend to fall back to the idea that devout Catholicism elevates the destination (Heaven) above the journey (life). Everything in life is geared towards the goal of getting to Heaven.

anna b. said:

You may be on to something here. In the context of her quote, in the screenshot I posted earlier it says, in part:

Situated in near segregation on the other side of the Potomac, Anacostia is the capital of black Washington, and there was suspicion at the time about the idea of a Missionaries of Charity operation there, because the inhabitants were known to resent the suggestion that they were helpless and abject Third Worlders. . . .
​

I could speculate that maybe that she was sharp enough 'read the room' at that particular moment in time, but I tend to fall back to the idea that devout Catholicism elevates the destination (Heaven) above the journey (life). Everything in life is geared towards the goal of getting to Heaven.

Click to expand...

This is Caesar's world then, or his and the devil's? It does feel that way sometimes.
But since this is the only world we know, I'm reluctant to regard the whole experience here as just a dry run for the next life. It could be that, but I think it's more.

If we all followed Christ's admonition to "love each other, as I have loved you", is it not possible that we could create Paradise right here on earth? For this world is so beautiful, and as we know from seeing photographs taken from space, from a distance it does look like paradise. Or will this always be a vale of tears, do you think? Perhaps this is purgatory? Graham Greene toyed with that idea, in his novel Brighton Rock.

RestlessSoul said:

This is Caesar's world then, or his and the devil's? It does feel that way sometimes.
But since this is the only world we know, I'm reluctant to regard the whole experience here as just a dry run for the next life. It could be that, but I think it's more.

If we all followed Christ's admonition to "love each other, as I have loved you", is it not possible that we could create Paradise right here on earth? For this world is so beautiful, and as we know from seeing photographs taken from space, from a distance it does look like paradise. Or will this always be a vale of tears, do you think? Perhaps this is purgatory? Graham Greene toyed with that idea, in his novel Brighton Rock.

Click to expand...

Sometimes, when I go through a down period, I wonder (like many others before me) "what's the point? We're born, we live, we die..." and a single human life feels so meaningless against the hugeness of the cosmos. Ants on an anthill.

When I'm happier? Then yes, I want (and sometimes see) that paradise on earth that you describe. : )

Some of those who believe in Purgatory actually do believe that some live their purgatory on earth. I suppose that's possible. Some people just seem to attract misfortune from the day they're born.

When I studied anthropology I had an interest in a tribe called the Jivaro,fierce warriors and fiercely independent,they cut the heads off of their enemies and would even wear their face till they actually shrunk it,unthinkable today.

The above may seem irrelevant but bear with me,the Jivaro were also great hunters and even kept gardens for food and the shaman would provide medicine and healing,everything they needed was there,the could look after themselves and needed no money.

One day the Spanish arrived and so did the jesuits who generously spread their vows of poverty all over South America,from a tribe of totally independent people to poverty stricken slaves thanks to the holy rich Roman church and their love of suffering,well except for them of course,beautiful not.

Yes, for to struggle is to build character. There is beauty in seeing humans push to survive in a manner which is placing kindness first. A gentle spirit takes on struggle differently than a vicious spirit.