• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Suffering

Brien

Member
I started this thread because we were getting off topic on another discussion.

Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, this is how it got started:

Are you saying that humans are the cause of cancers, diabetes, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, and also famine, poverty, etc? Surely an all-loving God could not let these atrocities devour his dearly loved creations.

::


My response was:

"Suffering is a complicated topic when it comes to rationalizing theism. C.S. Lewis is among those who have written an entire book about it, his is called The Problem of Pain. He was actually an atheist for much of his life and became a Christian in his later years.

I'll start off by saying I think there are probably two kinds of suffering. The first kind is caused by humans, either self-inflicted or caused by another individual. The second type of suffering is one which humans have little or no control over.

As for the first type of suffering I mentioned, I do not believe it can be attached to God. I believe that I am, to a large extent, in control of my actions. Sometimes free will is used for bad instead of good. I do not believe God could be held responsible for this.

The second kind of suffering is much harder to explain. Many Christians believe that all things happen for a reason (of course an atheist may believe the same thing - you might develop cancer as a result of life style choices: smoking, sunbathing, etc). But Job, in the bible, is a good example. If you are not familiar with this story, God allowed Job to be tempted by the devil for many years. Job suffered greatly but he stuck it out and when the trial had passed he was stronger than before. So a Christian might say that God allows us to suffer so that we can become a better individual in some way. I would also like to make clear that the Bible portrays the Christian belief to be not that God makes us suffer but allows us to do so.

Why do we go through periods of trial and tribulation? The best answer I have found to this is a quote by CS Lewis from The Problem of Pain."

"My own experience is something like this. I am progressing along the path of life in my ordinary contentedly fallen and godless condition, absorbed in a merry meeting with my friends or a bit of work that tickles my vanity today, a holiday or a new book, when suddenly a stab of abdominal pain that threatens serious disease, or a headline in the newspapers that threatens us all with destruction, sends this whole pack of cards tumbling down. At first I am overwhelmed, and all my little happinesses look like broken toys. Then[…] I try to bring myself into the frame of mind that I should be in at all times. I remind myself that these toys were never intended to posses my heart, that my true good is in another world[...] And perhaps, by God’s grace, I succeed, and for a day or two become a creature consciously dependent on God and drawing its strength from the right sources. But the moment the threat is withdrawn, my whole nature leaps back to the toys: I am anxious, God forgive me, to banish from my mind the only thing that supported me under the threat[…] And that is why tribulations cannot cease until God either sees us remade or sees us that our remaking is now hopeless."

::


Ceridwen018 then asked:

The idea you've presented (with a little help from C.S. Lewis ) basically states that god subjects us to pain and suffering, because it is during those times that we turn to him for help the most, and obviously that is what he wants. This concept disturbs me a little. Do you think that it's right for god to make people suffer, just so they'll stroke his ego? I don't mean to offend here, this is just what's going through my head. What are your ideas on this?

Because everyone is probably getting tired of what I have to say, I'd like to hear what some other people think about this first.
 

Master Vigil

Well-Known Member
I believe saying that god is not in control of your life says that god is not omnipotent. But if god was omnipotent, I believe that god would be in control of everything and therefore responsible for suffering. If one believes that god is not in control of suffering, than they should not believe in god. Or atleast a god that is both omnipotent and solely good.
 
This is an interesting subject. Is God responsible for our suffering, or are we responsible for our own suffering?

Well for every action there is a reaction eh? Or you reap what you sow? Or....just kidding. First if you even believe in God you would have to say in some way that He does put us through tests. I can only speak from my faith. God says in the quran, "Do you think that you can say you believe and not be tested?"

These tests, trials, afflictions, whatever u want to call them can come from God. The gentleman mentioned the story of Job. I have not read the story of job in the bible, but I know the story according to my faith. The man went through many physical afflictions yet remained steadfast in his faith. A trial or a test yes? So, if Job suffered, this suffering was a trial from God eh.

The other point the gentleman made was that we can have a hand in our own sufferings. If you know the consequences of something, you must be ready to pay the price. An example could be, if you eat McDonalds every day and gain 100 pounds as you knew you would, as everyone practically knows, then you should be ready to gain that 100 pounds if you choose to eat mcdonalds every day. And the health problems that come with the weight gain you should also expect. You shouldnt cry out and sue mcdonalds because you did something and knew the consequences. This is an example of self inflicted suffering eh?

Does this boil down to a question of free will if you're a believer in God? Because as I think....that's what i keep thinking :wink: . let me know. Peace to you all.
 

Brien

Member
I believe saying that god is not in control of your life says that god is not omnipotent. But if god was omnipotent, I believe that god would be in control of everything and therefore responsible for suffering. If one believes that god is not in control of suffering, than they should not believe in god. Or atleast a god that is both omnipotent and solely good.

Master Vigil,

The last time we had a conversation on omnipotence I’m not sure we agreed on anything; the source of our divergence is probably the drastically different forms of deity that we consider. But I will explain why I suggested the possibility of free will. In our last conversation, “Quick” made the point that God cannot do anything contrary to his own nature. So hypothetically speaking, if God decided it would be “best” to give humans free will to the Xth degree, then he could not intervene beyond that degree. To do so would not be what is “best,” and would therefore be a mistake by God’s own standards. That is why I believe it is possible for God to have given us free will, and also I believe there are some reasons he would have for doing so. But I do not accept the absolute sovereignty of God primarily because it seems much harder to rationalize, so I may be wrong.



Does this boil down to a question of free will if you're a believer in God?

Many theists who believe humans do not have free will generally throw all suffering into one big category – that which is imposed by God for a reason (e.g.: a period of trial to strengthen various attributes of the individual). I think this type of suffering is the main issue at hand, so hopefully we can try to work around free will. Maybe I should never have mentioned it.
 

Master Vigil

Well-Known Member
I understand that god cannot do anything that beyond gods nature. But if god was omnipotent, gods nature has no boundaries. And if god was solely good, than gods nature would be to rid all evil as fast as possible. However, god has not done that. Therefore it brings me to see that god is either A: Not omnipotent, or B: Not solely good. For me, I choose C: The Tao is all things and is the perfect balance of good and evil. It is the most logical.
 

Brien

Member
But if god was omnipotent, gods nature has no boundaries.

Omnipotence, by definition, means that his ability has no boundaries, not his nature.


And if god was solely good, than gods nature would be to rid all evil as fast as possible.

Referring to God as solely good does not imply that he must eliminate all evil from the universe in order to exist, merely that he is incapable of performing evil acts himself.


The Tao is all things and is the perfect balance of good and evil. It is the most logical.

Your statement that a ‘perfect balance’ exists suggests that both are necessary in some shape or form. This is no different from my claim that a loving God and evil people can simultaneously exist.

I would also like to note I believe it is a flawed perception to consider all suffering as evil. Suffering, in and of itself is not evil: no pain, no gain, right? Sometimes the individual who inflicts suffering is evil. However, if the suffering is inflicted in the best interests of the one who suffers, then the one who inflicts in the pain cannot be considered evil for doing so. Consider a parent for example: if the parent does not discipline his child at a young age the child will have a hard time adjusting when he or she becomes older and enters the real world.

That is what I think, but let me know if I have misunderstood any of your views that I have mentioned, or let me know about any disagreements you have.
 

Ardhanariswar

I'm back!
ah yes, the most asked question. Humans created these problems. Humans shall solve it (or deal). death is a release from the world. so thats a soluytion.... die!
 
Suffering is a result of sin. If you do not recognize sin and the imperfection it has given this world, then you cannot recognize that suffering can truly exist with an omnipotent good God. Because this world is sinful, there will always be suffering. The world was originally without sin, so at that time there was no suffering. However, since sin came into this world, there has been suffering ever since and will be from now until heaven comes. Evil will be destroyed, but the Earth will not exist upons its destruction. Utopia cannot be created here on Earth, and perfection will not be realized until heaven. This is a theological argument to suffering. If you don't believe in God in the first place, you won't get it.
 

Brien

Member
Suffering is a result of sin.

I suggest you read the book of Job in the Bible if you have not already. The source of Job's suffering was not sin. In fact, the secondary antagonists of the story were Job's friends who claimed he was suffering as a result of his own sin.


This is a theological argument to suffering. If you don't believe in God in the first place, you won't get it.

I agree that a non-theist will probably not accept a theist's view on pain, but I would like to keep this debate open to everyone. The view of suffering we maintain directly pertains to the perception of God we hold, but can also indirectly relate to whether or not we accept his existence.
 

Master Vigil

Well-Known Member
"Omnipotence, by definition, means that his ability has no boundaries, not his nature."

But, if gods ability has no boundaries, than surely god could change gods nature.

"Referring to God as solely good does not imply that he must eliminate all evil from the universe in order to exist, merely that he is incapable of performing evil acts himself."

Not in order to exist no. Yet, if a solely good and omnipotent god creates, nothing god creates should be evil. And the idea of good is to rid evil as fast as possible. And since god has not done that, I do not find god solely good.

"Your statement that a ‘perfect balance’ exists suggests that both are necessary in some shape or form. This is no different from my claim that a loving God and evil people can simultaneously exist. "

Yet my statement said that the perfect balance exists in the Tao (source of all things). So instead of having a solely good god, you would have a god that is both good and evil. That is the Tao, good and evil, all oppostes, everything.

It is true, suffering is not always evil, yet people do not enjoy it, it makes life miserable for those who do suffer. If god was all loving, all good, and all powerful... this would not occur. But snce loving, good, evil, suffering, pain, etc... are all subjective terms. I don't believe a god can be solely good, or loving.
 

Brien

Member
But, if gods ability has no boundaries, than surely god could change gods nature.

If god were perfect by his own standard then I don't see a reason why he would need to change his nature. In fact this could only be done by violating his standards, or changing his standards. The former would make him no longer perfect and the latter would not be logical since his standards would already be perfect.


Yet, if a solely good and omnipotent god creates, nothing god creates should be evil. And the idea of good is to rid evil as fast as possible. And since god has not done that, I do not find god solely good.

I would probably agree with you here when you say that nothing god creates should be evil. If god does exist I don't think that he created evil, but merely a metaphysical law that allows it to exist. Human beings are not evil; they possess the potential to perform evil acts. These are two very different things. If a human being performs an evil act the human has not become evil because he still has the potential of doing good.

Secondly, your idea of good may be that it is supposed to immediately obliterate evil, but I do not think that this is a popular conception and it is by no means a standard dictionary definition. Something that is good is something that is perfect and of moral excellence; it serves the desired purpose or end. If the existence of evil serves some greater purpose for good, then the act of allowing it to exist is not evil. Losing a battle is worth winning the war.

It is true, suffering is not always evil, yet people do not enjoy it, it makes life miserable for those who do suffer. If god was all loving, all good, and all powerful... this would not occur.

My views on this can be explained in the quote by CS Lewis at the top of this page. But I will summarize my stance by saying that if suffering serves a purpose for good then allowing the suffering to occur can still be considered good. I tried to explain this in another post using the anology of a parent's discipline, but let me know if I have still not made my ideas clear.
 
Suffering is a result of the imperfection of the world. The world is imperfect because of sin. As far as Job is concerned, his suffering was an attempt by Satan to show God up "in a sense" and turn His servant against him. Sin does affect good people. Would you say that the good Christian people in the World Trade Center towers died and their loved ones suffered because they sinned outrightly against God. No, it was the sin of the world that brought that calamity upon them.
 
I happened to have written the quote that this thread is based on and I would like to ask some questions. This is a good thread and I'm sorry I didn't see it sooner.

Brien,

When I first answered your question, you had not explained it in as clear terms as the first post of this thread. Having two kinds of suffering makes it a lot easier to see your side of the argument. DontFearMe mentions later that a human who eats McDonalds every day needs to accept the resulting health consequesnes; I fully agree. But what about sufferning that humans can not control?

Gerani says: "Humans created these problems. Humans shall solve it (or deal)." What about breast cancer? Did humans develope that? What about Tay Sachs disease or SickleCell Anemia or Juvenile Diabetes? The list goes on. Did humans really 'create' these horrible diseases? Some of these diseases that kill babies; babies that could not make a choice to eat healthy or exercise or whatever. Why is God killing babies?

LCMS Sprecher would tell you it's because the world is sinful; but the original sin is just a copout for a loophole in God's all-powerfullness. I truly can not understand why someone would actively believe in the story of original sin. The idea itself is recessive. Innocents, you, me, children, adults, dying, why, because Eve told Adam to eat an apple? If this is your idea of a logical explanation for suffering, you need to get some new beliefs.

I'm just a little confused by a quote from LCMS Sprecher here: "Suffering is a result of the imperfection of the world." She claims the world is imperfect, but didn't God create the world? Wouldn't the imperfection of one of God's creations put God in a fallible light? Just wondering.

I fully agree with your definition of the first kind of suffering. Third worlds dying of AIDS and starving because of greedy investors and multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical corperations. Humans responsible for human suffering. Where I disagree with you is on your second definition. The only explanation religion offers up to me is that God is testing me? I don't buy it for one second.
 

Brien

Member
LCMS, thanks, your point is much clearer now. I thought you were arguing that an individual's own sin was the cause.


Leader,

The only explanation religion offers up to me is that God is testing me? I don't buy it for one second.

I am glad we are in agreement on at least one type of suffering. As for suffering beyond human control, that is not the only explanation, but let me clarify it before I suggest another. The term 'test' carries the connotation that the underlying purpose of it is to see if the individual meets certain standards. I do not believe this is the purpose of tribulation periods. I believe that through them, god would intend to improve the individual in some form. According to the story, god allowed Job to go through a 'test,' and his spiritual strength and physical wealth increased as a result.

Having said that I will now suggest an additional source of various forms of suffering. However, if you do not accept my previous suggestion as a possibility, then you will not accept this one. I believe that if god created a metaphysical law that allowed beings to have free will, it would not be limited to physical beings. What evidence is there that non-physical beings exist, you might ask? I would say there is evidence is all around us. Sometimes things happen that we cannot explain. Does this mean that we should create explanations out of thin air? No, but it does mean that we should consider all of the possibilities. So consider it from another point of view - the more we learn about the physical universe the stranger it seems to become. In quantum physics we are finding most of the physical realm we can't even see, its behavior can only be described with mathematical equations.

This idea may seem ludicrous to you, but at least realize that these beliefs have been held by nearly every civilization prior to our own. And I don't want you to get caught up in biblical terms like "angels" and "demons" - such titles suggest an embodied entity. Try to think of them as more of what they would be, as shapeless principalities or spiritual forces. If conscious physical beings could come into existence, is it really so hard to believe that non-physical beings could come into existence as well? Thus the physical universe may be a battlefield, of sort, for the non-physical realm.

Well, you asked for an additional explanation. There it is. No doubt, you will find it hard to swallow. I find it difficult to fully accept for myself but I do recognize it as a possibility. Let me know what you think.

I also have an answer to "[Don't] God's creations put God in a fallible light?" It's a good question and I will get to it later but it's the 4th of july now and I have to go play golf.
 

Paraprakrti

Custom User
The idea you've presented (with a little help from C.S. Lewis ) basically states that god subjects us to pain and suffering, because it is during those times that we turn to him for help the most, and obviously that is what he wants. This concept disturbs me a little. Do you think that it's right for god to make people suffer, just so they'll stroke his ego? I don't mean to offend here, this is just what's going through my head. What are your ideas on this?

God doesn't make people suffer in order for them to "stroke His ego". God makes people suffer to wake them up. We are constitutionally full of bliss in our eternal relationship with God. But, due to ignorance and contact with the material nature, we have forgotten this relationship and so we suffer. We continue to suffer as long as we keep taking shelter under these material toys, (as Brien put it). So God awaits us to look to Him, because then, and only then, can we be truly happy. Also, there are plenty of other liberated egos in God's company. To think that God would even need us to stroke His ego is nonsense.
 

Ardhanariswar

I'm back!
okay, the people in baghdad are suffering because their loved ones have died. they have commited no sin... i just disproved you LMS preacher.
 
Evolutionary man finds it difficult fully to comprehend the significance and to grasp the meanings of evil, error, sin, and iniquity. Man is slow to perceive that contrastive perfection and imperfection produce potential evil; that conflicting truth and falsehood create confusing error; that the divine endowment of freewill choice eventuates in the divergent realms of sin and righteousness; that the persistent pursuit of divinity leads to the kingdom of God as contrasted with its continuous rejection, which leads to the domains of iniquity.

The Gods neither create evil nor permit sin and rebellion. Potential evil is time-existent in a universe embracing differential levels of perfection meanings and values. Sin is potential in all realms where imperfect beings are endowed with the ability to choose between good and evil. The very conflicting presence of truth and untruth, fact and falsehood, constitutes the potentiality of error. The deliberate choice of evil constitutes sin; the willful rejection of truth is error; the persistent pursuit of sin and error is iniquity.


[from The Urantia Book]



There is no denying that we live in an EVOLUTIONARY and EXPERIENTIAL creation. That is the NATURE of this time-space universe in which we live. There is NO original sin and there NEVER was. Perfection exists only on Paradise,but this universe of time-space, in which we live, couldn't exist if there were no contrasts. Ours is an eternal ascension towards God so that, through EXPERIENCE, we might get to know, understad and be like him.



Cheers
 
Gerani1248 said:
okay, the people in baghdad are suffering because their loved ones have died. they have commited no sin... i just disproved you LMS preacher.

I don't see how that proves me wrong. I attributed suffering in the world to sinfulness of the world. Suffering is the result of sin, not individual sin (God doesn't just hit you because you've been bad though there might will be repercussions for you sin). The terrorists who kill people in Iraq are sinning when they do those acts. The world's sin which comes out through their actions is what leads to suffering, not God. To attribute God with suffering, is an attempt to find a way to blaim our problems on someone else (in this case, God). I thought I made the world's sin being responsible for suffering (I used the 9/11 victim's families as an example) clear in my last post.
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
Paraprakrti,

But, due to ignorance and contact with the material nature, we have forgotten this relationship and so we suffer.

So why doesn't god do away with ignorance and contact with material nature, so we don't have to suffer anymore?

To think that God would even need us to stroke His ego is nonsense.

Easily said, but can you back it up? Why is it nonsense?
 
Top