Does God Want You to Suffer?

[Kurt31416]

...I'll end this post by saying that the only absolute that exists is that there are no absolutes, and that there are ALWAYS exceptions to every rule, including it's own rule.

Yep, the Ultimate Truth is that there is no Ultimate truth, (but then, everything in this sentence is a lie.)

 

[ayani]

Does god want you to suffer? Why or why not?

sometimes. God often uses suffering to refine character, humble us, teach us something, help us turn away from ourselves and towards Him, and in our poverty bring us closer to His riches.

if one knows God and walks with Him, these things are better understood, and less difficult to cope with. everyone suffers, but if we can see something of God's design, will, and lesson in what we endure and learn from, we're better able to stay close to Him and seek His will, not our own.

and we are promised that He will carry us safely through our trials, and that where we are in our sffering is no where He hasn't already been, and conquered.

 

[Riverwolf]

Okay, before I start I just need to clarify a few things.
First off, I myself am an Agnostic, to best describe my "beliefs" and perspective. I believe there are many things, most things in fact, that I do not understand, and that I cannot understand. I don't know what happens after death, and I don't know the meaning or purpose of life.
My posts aren't an attempt to moan about many of the harsh factors in reality, because we all know of course that Humanity isn't the centre of the universe, and that of course nature, physics, biology and so many other factors dominate our lives, that's life. My posts are for people who claim there is a Supreme Creator, and All-Knowing, All-Loving, Omnipotent superbeing that "supervises" or "oversees" our entire existence. Of course, the model I'm referring to the most is the one put forth in the three Monotheisms. However, with you Riverwolf, there is something a little different. I think it would be a good idea if you were to explain to me your beliefs in greater detail, then I won't be so inaccurate with your veiws atleast (like when I presumed you believed in Heaven & Hell, it might apply to another Theist, but not you personally).

I'm currently studying and considering adopting [FONT=&quot]Ś[/FONT]aivism. To get a good idea as to what that is, read SHVETASHVATARA UPANISHAD. This ancient text will give you an outline to the Śaivite beliefs.

Of course. However my questions are aimed at people who believe an Omni-Potent "God" is above life, and even created life. I have ot admit that I presumed you came under this catagory at first. I have no problem with Nature, in the sense that life just seems to operate in that fashion. But with someone who believes in a super-intelligent Creator, then it becomes questionable as to why such a "poor" design can exist under a divine blueprint.

Which is why I don't believe in an "intelligent" creator, however I also don't believe nature is "poor" in design.

Well, it depends on your beliefs, in regard to the Monotheistic beliefs atleast, God himself would actually be above the rules of physics and nature, and would be perfectly capable of altering them. As for the few petty Homo Sapiens, according to the same dogmas, they're apparently "God's favourite/special" race, and life (including the Universe) centres entirely around them and their "path" to God. In your case however, I don't know exactly what you believe, perhaps you could explain your beliefs a little more?

See above quote. ^_^

Depends on how your define "discipline". for example, Children can be brought up disciplined and don't need to "accept" Death, or the concept of it. However I presume you're talking in a more supernatural type of discipline that this God of yours wants. Don't forget, youre idea of a "God" has yet to be proven, so it can only be taken as opinion or speculation for now.

Not quite. The discipline of accepting death is taught by the Bushi. (Samurai.)

This is where I think you're misunderstanding me. The things that I've mentioned that Humanity could do without, where things like Asteroids, Diseases, Infant Mortality, Natural Abortion, Natural catastrophies, children being born into utter poverty. I've suggested why we couldn't have better mental capacity to create a society where atleast people are born with an equal chance of survival, and that we maximize efficiency and minimise resource-waste, such a society in many ways could be seen as less "easy" in terms of things like material possessions, since excess wealth and waste would'nt be accepted etc.
I 'm getting the impression that you think I want a life where we're all born into rich families where we live in Mansions and don't have to work, and don't have to get out of bed, and don't ever have to not get our own way, I don't see why you've taken it to the oppoiste end of the scale, unless of course you believe that a World without disease, utter povety, infant mortality and natural disasters would be "easy".

It'd be easier. ^_^ I never said rich mansions, by the way. I HATE HATE HATE mansions and fancy-pance stuff. (I don't even have an iPod yet, nor do I have any intention of getting one.)

Who's the one judging now? In a later post you tell me in capitals not to judge at all, atleast not until you have some sort of "qualifications" in that subject, you trying to tell me you've got a PHD in Life? Who're you to judge peoples lives as "easy" and therefore unneccessary/not worthy?

Who says I was judging people?

Maybe it would have been better to say that I don't want an easy life, because to me, that means sitting in front of a computer or video game all day while my mom does all the important things for me.

So if someone is happy with their life, and has a happy family, good wealth, and personally thinks he/she's had a good/great life, and since he/she's been lucky enough not to be a victim of a natural disaster, povety, natural abortion etc, are you then gonna say that his/her life was worthless and that he/she hasn't "learnt" anything?

Not if such a life was earned, lived well, or both.

On the contrary, what about the Woman who's child just died after birth, or who's just had a miscarriage - what're you gonna say to her? That it's a good thing that happened, because otherwise your life would've been too "easy" and therefore not worth living, and th she's learn't something from that?

Of course not. If a mother's baby just died, I'd give her support and comfort. But I would NEVER wish that it had never happened; such thinking, I believe, can be mentally dangerous. (Though I will admit that I'm not an expert on psychology.)

What about the people born into povety in Africa, a kid whose family have been murdered by militias, and who has to walk miles just to get a bucket full of dirty, potentially lethal water, who's only surviving sibling is a malnuturished infant slowly dieing? You gonna smile at them and say they're lucky they've been so unfortunate, because atleast they're lives aren't "easy" and are more worth living?

I'd take the children somewhere where they can be cared for, and if I can't, I'd take them under my wing until I can.

Compassion is a major part of what I believe.

What about the people who (under God's watchfull eye) never even got a chance to live or learn, because they died in the womb, or as an infant? You gonna tell me that they learn't something from that, even though they died at the beginning of their lives?

They can't have learned anything, of course; they were the teachers.

No need to be sensitive, just for ease sake - say I'm wrong, I'm not gonna get offended lol.

Nah. It's also against the rules. And like I said, "wrong" would be a bad word to use, especially now.

You say someone is "wrong" when they say the earth is flat. (And trust me; a month ago we had a troll who claimed just that.)

 

[Riverwolf]

Didn't you jsut judge in an earlier post that "Easy" lives are "not worth living" and that basically, fortunate people with a decent quality of life don't learn anything? Aren't you objectively judging there, especially on a topic that is entirely subjective (perception/outlook on life)? Do you then have (or are working on) qualifications in Life, and the meaning of Life, and have a Degree in "Life judgement"?

It might be a bit better to say that I would not want to live an easy life, because I would not learn anything.

Of course it's subjective, and if someone else wants to live an easy life, that's their choice, not mine. I will not say anything about the worth of their life unless I know all about it.

(Yeah... in case you haven't noticed, my articulation skills are seriously lacking. lol)

 

[other-side]

Does god want you to suffer? Why or why not?

No?
why should he want to?
he sometimes give some situation which will exercise the soul but it's hard for the body and we think it's suffering.

 

[opuntia]

Of course.

"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

"If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye ********, and not sons." (Hebrews 12:6-8; KJV).

We all suffer to some degree by something or someone. Here, Paul is saying that anyone who became a Christian at that day would suffer for becoming a disciple of Jesus.

Suffering is the opposite of joy and we have both in abundance. We cannot have one without the other. We could never appreciate joy if all we knew was joy. But if we know pain, then joy becomes more appreciated. Pain itself would not seem like pain if that was all we knew. But when joy comes, pain is all the more painful. Eyes used to the dark are pained by the arrival of light. And the appearance of darkness frightens us as we huddle in the light.

 

[Aquitaine]

Riverwolf.

Honestly, no offence but I'm not gonna look into the religion you're considering - I've read into enough of them in the past, but my main reason is that the argument I've raised was aimed at Monotheists (x-ians, j0000000s, and fuzzy-muzzys), and really, there isn't much I can say to you because your beliefs are entirely different.

I guess it's my own fault though for not "designating" my intended "target" religions/God concepts in my first post, not only that but the OP question is a lot more deep than we thought, since everyone has their own veiws about what "God" actually is, and of course everyone knows that there is more to religion than just the j00000s, x-ians and fuzzy-muzzys. Since my argument was against the Monotheistic God Concept, it kinda renders our discussion useless, since you ain't a Monotheists lol! xD

Of course, I could go and read up about Shaivism, and then continue from there, but to be honest it'd just be a ball-ache because if I read into and debate with one different religion, then the next person who comes along with another entirely different belief system, I'd have to do the same - and again, and again, and again lol, depending on how many people respond to me in this thread.

So, really I don't know where to go from here. My argument obviously ain't geared towards Shaivism cause I don't know the first thing about it, so..... erm...... I dunno where to take our discussion further!?

I guess we'll just smooth it all out and agree that we both have different views about reality, and that unless you become a j0000, x-ian or fuzzy-muzzy any time soon, then my argument doesn't really apply to you xD

Nevertheless it's still interesting to debate things like this after all.

 

[logician]

Does god want you to suffer? Why or why not?

What evidence is there that suffering comes from some supposed god?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

In that case, then anything and everything will alter, and continue to alter our Free Will, life itself will alter free will. You could say that with ease, since how your personality evolves as you grow older, youre Free Will has been matured, and all the childhood things you used to want to do, you can no longer do (or, well you can do them, but you no longer want to do them - therefore your free will has been altered).
That's just a fact of existence, our Free Will gets changed/compromised all the time - even by negative things. If a Woman is raped, and she has difficultly trusting her new man, she wants to trust him, and he's a good man, but she just can't bring herself to - her free Will was altered by a negative experience.
In that case, since our Free Wills will always be altered, who cares if ending natural disasters and disease will affect it even further? I know before I said that gettig rid of them won't change our Free Will, but of course I meant that in a less technical way, technically our Free Wills change all the time, and on a micro level getting rid of diseases/natural disasters would change our Free Will - but so will being a victim of one of them. Who cares if ending them will change our Free Will by a tiny amount, it gets changed all the time anyways - may aswell have it changed for something good.

I'm not suggesting God controls our every move, I'm just saying it seems bizarre that this "loving creator" would create such unneccessary things - that for the most part are out of Humaities ability to control, not things like animals, because we can control (physically) them.

Errm... No. Our free will does not get altered. Our will gets altered. Our will is the desires towards certain ends (intentions as it were). Free will in the discussion of cosmology is a systemic framework.

If in order to be free our wills must be free from all influence, then you are correct. There is no difference between a deity altering our will and the progression through life. And if free will only requires us to be free from deific influence, then a deity can do nothing as everything is interconnected. If in order to be free our wills need only correspond with our desires then I challenge you to come up with a manner in which a deity could influence reality without compromising someone's will.

MTF

 

[UnTheist]

Does god want you to suffer? Why or why not?

Some versions of the Judeo-Christian God that have been described to me most certainly do want me to suffer.

 

[Aquitaine]

Errm... No. Our free will does not get altered. Our will gets altered. Our will is the desires towards certain ends (intentions as it were). Free will in the discussion of cosmology is a systemic framework.

If in order to be free our wills must be free from all influence, then you are correct. There is no difference between a deity altering our will and the progression through life. And if free will only requires us to be free from deific influence, then a deity can do nothing as everything is interconnected. If in order to be free our wills need only correspond with our desires then I challenge you to come up with a manner in which a deity could influence reality without compromising someone's will.

MTF

I understand that you're looking at the use of the words "Free Will" deeper than I expected. Yes technically it should only be "Will" but for the sake of ease I usually just call it "Free Will".

Anyways,

"If in order to be free our wills must be free from all influence, then you are correct."

Well, errrm.... yeah. But by "Free" it kinda contradicts what most people assume "Free" is (i.e, to be able to do whatever you want) Whereas, a Will totally isolated from any for of influence (whether Deity/life) wouldn't be able to do anything it wanted to do, since it would in a sense be dead.
Without the inlfuence of life to kick-start your existence, and continue to house reality for you, then you'd technically be non-living, or just dead.
The way I see it, life if a series of our brains reactions to the influence of reality. So without anything to influence us, we'd have no need to react, and then we would not be living/alive/conscious etc - but hey, that's just my own little guess so it's probably not true.
The word I'd best use for a WIll without any influence would be "Neutral", or just "dead" lol.

"There is no difference between a deity altering our will and the progression through life. "

Correct, or any other source that influences us that doesn't fall into the catagories of either life or a Deity etc. The only thing that I would say is that everyone knows and acknowledges reality, but any idea of a Deity or divine "true" religion has yet to provide evidence for itself. so in my opinion the only factor (yet discovered) which alters our Will is life itself. But yeah, I get what you mean.

"And if free will only requires us to be free from deific influence, then a deity can do nothing as everything is interconnected."

And if free will only requires us to be free from deific influence, then a deity can do nothing as everything is interconnected."

Well, from what I've said above about a "Free" Will, it would be a Will without any source of influence, it would therefore be like a brain without a reality, and the brain would have no stimulation of it's existence, nor would it be able to react, grow or learn since nothing is being "put infront" of it to do so. So really, a "Free" Will would require not only no influence from a Deity, but also no influence from a reality, or anything at all. It would therefore be "dead"/non-living/existent.

"If in order to be free our wills need only correspond with our desires"

Sorry I think you misunderstood me. Fortunately I have explained now that in order to be "Free" our Wills need to not be influenced by anything at all.
So, if our Wills only corresponded with our desires, then it's not a "Free" Will, since where did one accumilate such desires from? From your developed brain, in more detail: from your emotions, your personality, your circumstances, and some (i.e. sex) even from our Instincts, all of which are a result of/influence of reality.

"then I challenge you to come up with a manner in which a deity could influence reality without compromising someone's will."

Well I can't really answer that because I'm not saying a "Free" Will is a Will void of only Deitic influence, and is dependent only on our/in accordance to fulfilling our desires.

But I will try to answer the question nevertheless.

Lets say, as you put it, that our Wills are the desires towards certain ends. That we gather/accumilate our personality/taste and therfore our desires from our experiences in reality - which is true, wouldn't you say?

Well, if a Deity wanted to influence Reality without altering our Wills, then he'd need to alter something that doesn't conflict/alter with what we desire. Of course it's all subjective, sinece desires are in the eye of the beholder, so somewhere along the line someones (or something) is gonna get a raw deal, but as far as Humanity is concerned (which is mostly what I care about) then it's not as hard.

There's only two ways I can suggest it can be done.

1) Make alterations to reality before any life is born (which might've happened already), therefore no Will can accumilate yet or desire what has just been altered.

2) Find something that the majority of Humanity dislike, and change it. For example, Natural Disasters, Infant Mortality, Disease etc. Of course, that would mean that Nature and other forms of life will have to "suffer" or have their Wills altered, but as far as Humanity is concerned - hooray!

Besides, of course our Wills get altered all the time by reality, mostly due to negative things which would affect our survival. I'm not arsed about having my reality or Will altered slightly (since it happens constantly anyways), I'd just rather it be changed for something good like no diseases etc.

Of course, it's possible one day that I'd become Sadistic, that my Will will be altered so much that I seek pleasure in totally opossite things, and take great pleasure from seeing/hearing about people being killed by disease, natural disasters and infant mortalities etc, and therefore removing them would drastically alter my Will again, since they're some of the the primary sources of what would then be my pleasures. But I sincerely doubt that I, or any other Human is gonna turn out like that, even if one did - who cares if they get their Wills drastically altered, and their pleasures (Humans getting killed by disease, distasters etc etc) get taken away, they're a**holes anyways for being like that anyway!

 

[Beaudreaux]

Disease is other life forms trying to survive. Should we ask God to remove them from existence?

As for natural disasters, that's the planet mixing up the atmosphere so that we can have life here at all.

I see. So Go cannot prevent these things because they are necessary.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Suffering will help us be stronger, and sympathize better with those who suffer thus being more willing to help them, in future lives.

This is all well and good when speaking of suffering in the abstract. But how do you address the mother who's 5 year old girl has been abducted, raped, murdered and her body dumped by the side of the road. Will you tell her that was necessary so that she can REALLY sympathize with others who suffer?

BTW, this is kind of a circular argument. People must suffer so they can sympathize with others who suffer? What if no one suffered?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Nature needs to survive so that we can survive, and natural disasters are necessary for that. It's how physics work.

I wonder who set it up that way? If you believe in God, then the answer is clear. Either He WANTED it that way, or this is the best He can do and he is UNABLE to make it better.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I'll end this post by saying that the only absolute that exists is that there are no absolutes, and that there are ALWAYS exceptions to every rule, including it's own rule.

....I am very nearly speechless. This is the most elegantly illogical statement I have ever read. I love how the first part of the sentence claims there is only one truth and then the rest of the sentence outlines a second one. Forget the fact that the first part is self-contradictory.

 

[Beaudreaux]

No, God could not. Pay attention Paul this one also answers you too.


Stopping disease, natural disasters, cosmic radiation, solar flares, meteors, etc... would one and all compromise free will. The motion of every particle in this universe is interrelated, if by however small an amount. To countermand the efforts of one set of particles is going to interact with every particle along the world line of that particle (that is every other particle it has ever interacted with will change accordingly).

I am not able to control animals. Should God stop animal stampedes? I am not able to control air quality. Does that mean God should magically make our air pure? I can't control the actions of other people. And how is this case any different from the previous two? Where do you draw the line at "how much control we have?"

And why is our limitations NOW beholden unto what God should stop or not stop? In the future we will be able to influence and possibly control so-called "natural disasters" of virtually every sort. It is our business how to deal with our environment. Compromising our environment changes how everyone within that environment will act. If God stops a storm, then a rainbow will form and this will inevitably change the way some people go about their lives. That is altering free will.


I suppose the question you all need to answer is "What precisely is "Free Will?" Does Free Will mean freedom from any and all influences? If this were the case nothing has free will as everything is interconnected in some way (everything is influenced by its environment). Does Free Will mean freedom from divine agency? If this is the case then God pretty much gets to do nothing as everything is interconnected. Does Free Will merely mean that our actions correspond with our desires? If this is the case, then God could change everything and a bag of chips and still not violate Free Will, but just how "free" is this will, when our desires are formed based on our assessment of our environments and ourselves which are now subject to indiscriminate changes by "God?"

MTF

I find it fascinating that you describe a rigidly mechanistic and deterministic world as your defense of free will.

 

[other-side]

I see. So God cannot prevent these things because they are necessary.

But how do you address the mother who's 5 year old girl has been abducted, raped, murdered and her body dumped by the side of the road. Will you tell her that was necessary so that she can REALLY sympathize with others who suffer?

I wonder who set it up that way? If you believe in God, then the answer is clear. Either He WANTED it that way, or this is the best He can do and he is UNABLE to make it better.

Imagine we lived on a world like this:

- no Earthquakes , no Hurricanes,Tsunamis and whatever you count as a disaster!
-No killing .no murder,no rape,no cruelty,no abduction,no fears and and whatever you name Bad !
-everything great,perfect and smooth! you imagined food and it appeared in front of you! you wanted to go to another place thousand miles away and you were there by a blink! you could like whatever you loved and it was there when you decided.

Ok,here we go:
1- those who wanted to kill would have said we love to kill we have decided to be a genocidism!! why is this world imperfect damn!God is evil
---what's your answer for them?
2- there will be no science knowledge or even moving towards improvement because everything is perfect and we have what we want so why should we learn more.we know everything we live in an ideal world.
--- whats your Idea? is that good?
3-perhaps earth will explode with population because no one dies! people live more than a hundred year!They have a healthy life with no diseases no cancer and so on.
---- move,i want some space here!
?????? so why are we here in this cruel full of suffering world (if we assume it's that bad!) ?????
to grow to grow to grow.I don't mean our bodies,don't worry about them, they will grow automatically. grow up.Grow your soul!
How? by passing the exams,by testing yourself and finding out your capacity.God will give you the perfect world after death...This damn ****y world is not the place your looking for all the good things. get over it . find out what's your mission and go for it.
Just pass your exam well even if you don't get an A :rainbow1:
catch the chances and grow
so

Does God want you to suffer?

yeh grow up!

 

[Riverwolf]

This is all well and good when speaking of suffering in the abstract. But how do you address the mother who's 5 year old girl has been abducted, raped, murdered and her body dumped by the side of the road. Will you tell her that was necessary so that she can REALLY sympathize with others who suffer?

BTW, this is kind of a circular argument. People must suffer so they can sympathize with others who suffer? What if no one suffered?

Did you miss the "future lives" bit?

Everyone and everything suffers. Why should humans be spared suffering when all other forms of life suffer? Why should human mothers be spared the horror (and I do mean horror, by the way) of their children being torn away from them and killed when deer and elephants and dolphins and rhinos and wolves and all other animals have to suffer the same things? Heck, we are the sole cause of suffering for most other animals.

Why should we be spared suffering?

 

[Riverwolf]

I wonder who set it up that way? If you believe in God, then the answer is clear. Either He WANTED it that way, or this is the best He can do and he is UNABLE to make it better.

God didn't "make" it that way; it's always been that way.

A sage once said that there is but one thing God cannot do: separate himself from us.

 

[Riverwolf]

....I am very nearly speechless. This is the most elegantly illogical statement I have ever read. I love how the first part of the sentence claims there is only one truth and then the rest of the sentence outlines a second one. Forget the fact that the first part is self-contradictory.

By Aristotlean logic, of course it's paradoxical. So don't use "either this or that" thinking for this kind of statement, because such thinking does not apply to everything.

(Don't get me wrong; I have nothing but great respect for Aristotle, and the "either this or that" train of thought is paramount to scientific thinking.)