Heneni
Miss Independent
HUH? I strive to know as few demons as i can. LOL! Especially the demon of depression.
Heneni
-
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!
Does God Want You to Suffer?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
HUH? I strive to know as few demons as i can. LOL! Especially the demon of depression.
Heneni
I know that demon all too well.
He's probably the craftiest and, believe it or not, most alluring demon of them all. His call is that of a siren: nigh irresistible. Once he has you in his grip, it takes all your willpower, AND help from others, to get out of it again.
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
God could stop all suffering with a thought. He does not. Clearly, he wants you to suffer.
rojse
RF Addict
Who says that God does not stop some suffering?
Does not necessarily follow from the first, though. A good rebuttal to this idea I have encountered on here was that pain can be used as a tool for teaching. A child touches a hot stove, and gets burnt. That child will not touch a hot stove again.
That said, I don't necessarily agree with that analogy, but think it worthwhile considering one theological perspective on the issue.
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
Sort of a moot question isn't it? Your body is rather designed with a mechanism for learning based on pain and pleasure. Pain is sort of a given, right? Pleasure seeking and pain avoidance are the bedrock of human behavior. The only "differences" are found in how "complex" the pains and pleasures are (sexual pleasure versus the pleasure you receive from reading a mystery novel; the pain you experience when you break your leg versus the pain you experience when your childhood friend commits suicide in front of your eyes).
So if there is a "designer," then clearly they wanted/expected you to experience pain, and hopefully react accordingly.
But the term used was "suffer," and that is kind of a loaded word. By suffer do you mean "experience pain needlessly?" If that is the case, then I don't think there is anyone who can reasonably claim the answer is yes. "Needless pain" is one of the leading contributing factors towards the development of sociopathy. There just isn't any "reason" for it. Even if you want to claim that "sin" is needed so that we can repent and truly understand grace (or some other complicated theological argument); you still can't claim suffering is good or necessary towards some divine end so long as God is either A) Moral OR B) Has a plan for creation that involves anything other than self-annihilation.
MTF
So if there is a "designer," then clearly they wanted/expected you to experience pain, and hopefully react accordingly.
But the term used was "suffer," and that is kind of a loaded word. By suffer do you mean "experience pain needlessly?" If that is the case, then I don't think there is anyone who can reasonably claim the answer is yes. "Needless pain" is one of the leading contributing factors towards the development of sociopathy. There just isn't any "reason" for it. Even if you want to claim that "sin" is needed so that we can repent and truly understand grace (or some other complicated theological argument); you still can't claim suffering is good or necessary towards some divine end so long as God is either A) Moral OR B) Has a plan for creation that involves anything other than self-annihilation.
MTF
If you think that he's the most crafty and alluring demon, then you haven't met the Nicotine demon that I carry round on my back.
Heneni
Miss Independent
This post is really for christians to help them understand why their suffering is not in vain, and what good does it do in this world:
Consider the following...
The love of christ which was demonstrated through His suffering on the cross was completely enough to secure our everlasting salvation. However, the world, since jesus is no longer here, have no opportunity to see the same kind of suffering HE experienced unless we suffer in full view of the world. So the body of christ suffers to reveal and make real to the world the suffering of christ, in his absence. In pauls case his suffering did no complete christ's sufferings in the sense that christ's afflictions were not sufficient, but rather he extended them to the people they were meant to save. So he was filling up what was lacking in christs afflications by the extension of the suffering of jesus to his day and age, as we do in our day and age.
It is interesting i think that in the book of revelation we see that the people are asking 'how long lord how long', and the answer is until the full amount of martyres have been gathered. I think that there is something very significant and powerful when we suffer with christ and for christ. We extend the visual demonstration of the love of christ on the cross to those around us. We dont only preach the good news but we extend the reality of the suffering jesus experienced on the cross to others.
And so the gospel makes great headway wherever the children of god suffer, because we then bear in our bodies the marks of jesus so that JESUS might be seen and His love might work powerfully in those who see it. The cross is all about love, and the suffering that jesus endured was all for our sake, and the power of the gospel is demonstrated also, when we too extend the suffering of the cross to others, in order to reveal and not only teach about the love of god for the world through suffering.
So paul says ''death is at work in us, but life in you''. The suffering that paul experienced at times made him feel like he had received the sentence of physical death, yet the danger of being martyred and the suffering and afllictions he went through, and the confident hope that paul had in heaven, and the love that he had for the congregations, would work powerfully in the observers and listeners of the gospel, as he extended his suffering to them, in order to also extend the life of christ to them. So death was working in him, but life in them.
Heneni
Consider the following...
The love of christ which was demonstrated through His suffering on the cross was completely enough to secure our everlasting salvation. However, the world, since jesus is no longer here, have no opportunity to see the same kind of suffering HE experienced unless we suffer in full view of the world. So the body of christ suffers to reveal and make real to the world the suffering of christ, in his absence. In pauls case his suffering did no complete christ's sufferings in the sense that christ's afflictions were not sufficient, but rather he extended them to the people they were meant to save. So he was filling up what was lacking in christs afflications by the extension of the suffering of jesus to his day and age, as we do in our day and age.
It is interesting i think that in the book of revelation we see that the people are asking 'how long lord how long', and the answer is until the full amount of martyres have been gathered. I think that there is something very significant and powerful when we suffer with christ and for christ. We extend the visual demonstration of the love of christ on the cross to those around us. We dont only preach the good news but we extend the reality of the suffering jesus experienced on the cross to others.
And so the gospel makes great headway wherever the children of god suffer, because we then bear in our bodies the marks of jesus so that JESUS might be seen and His love might work powerfully in those who see it. The cross is all about love, and the suffering that jesus endured was all for our sake, and the power of the gospel is demonstrated also, when we too extend the suffering of the cross to others, in order to reveal and not only teach about the love of god for the world through suffering.
So paul says ''death is at work in us, but life in you''. The suffering that paul experienced at times made him feel like he had received the sentence of physical death, yet the danger of being martyred and the suffering and afllictions he went through, and the confident hope that paul had in heaven, and the love that he had for the congregations, would work powerfully in the observers and listeners of the gospel, as he extended his suffering to them, in order to also extend the life of christ to them. So death was working in him, but life in them.
Heneni
katiafish
consciousness incarnate
I think it really has to do with the idea of God that one would have. The God I believe in is the all encompassing Divine Unity, and as it is all encompassing, that means we are a part of it, another aspect of it. So a more interesting question for me personally would be: Does our suffering makes God suffer? How does suffering affect the Divine?
Okay. I take it back. I forgot about that siren prince of hell, whose song I've been conditioned to fear and avoid.
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
I said God could stop ALL suffering, and does not.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
I agree that some forms of pain can are a good thing since they help us to learn about reality and then how to avoid further pain. However, wouldn't it be more simple if God created a World/Universe that had no mortal/unneccessary dangers, and where Humanity could focus on worshipping God rather than fighting for survival, fighting for territory and power, killing lesser animals for a food source, trying to avert/deal with natural disasters, trying to cure diseases etc. Surely with all those unneccassary negatives taken out of life, God could observe Humans more purely in realiton to understanding and worshipping God? It would also mean that with fewer or no physical mortal dangers in existence, Humans could be designed to rely more on mental capacity for reasoning, courage, compassion etc, rahter than our current design which is geared towards physical prowess and inferior mental capacity purely because we need to physically overcome mortal dangers in order to survive. Of course we'd still die, but by our natural death, not some disease, war, accident, natural disaster etc.
Another point.
If God wants to observe Humanity and help it move towards the rightous path of God, then why does he not give everyone an equal starting position? Why is it he births certain people in total povety, total disease, total war? Why does he naturall abort countless unborn babies, and ones that do survive only last mere days because the suffer from life-threatening birth defects? Why do some Mothers die after giving birth? Hardly a good example to say that those who give the gift of life get screwed over instantly by dying after/during labour.
Why is there suffering?
Either,
God has decent intentions for bringing good and ending suffering, but not the power to physically apply them to this world.
Or,
God has decent power to implement things into this world (even create it in 6 days, right?) but he does not have the compassion, sympathy, or intent to bring good and end suffering in this world.
You decide.
Another point.
If God wants to observe Humanity and help it move towards the rightous path of God, then why does he not give everyone an equal starting position? Why is it he births certain people in total povety, total disease, total war? Why does he naturall abort countless unborn babies, and ones that do survive only last mere days because the suffer from life-threatening birth defects? Why do some Mothers die after giving birth? Hardly a good example to say that those who give the gift of life get screwed over instantly by dying after/during labour.
Why is there suffering?
Either,
God has decent intentions for bringing good and ending suffering, but not the power to physically apply them to this world.
Or,
God has decent power to implement things into this world (even create it in 6 days, right?) but he does not have the compassion, sympathy, or intent to bring good and end suffering in this world.
You decide.
You make it almost sound as if there isn't a single human who doesn't struggle to survive.
Many times, though I admit not all the time, deaths at birth are due to the mother not being responsible, at least when it comes to countries with health care.
When it comes to underdeveloped countries, they suffer because of the greed and selfishness of others.
You make it sound as if there's no good in the world, almost as if we were already in hell and Judgment Day already over.
There are many other choices that you're forgetting. You're limiting what can happen based solely on the Western idea of God, ignoring the East's.
I present to you another choice: there are many chances to reach God, not one and that's it.
Azakel
Liebe ist für alle da
That or the two example you gave are wrong and you need to maybe think about a different god concept. It's not stuck on just to different concepts.
I have, and think that the two you give are wrong.
Ringer
Jar of Clay
I don't believe that God wants us to suffer but that doesn't change the fact that He allows it to happen. Why He allows it to happen is something that has been debated long before me and will be debated long after I'm gone. I liked what C.S. Lewis said about suffering:
ManTimeForgot
Temporally Challenged
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
"You make it almost sound as if there isn't a single human who doesn't struggle to survive."
Humanity is in a constant state of struggle, and climbing an endless uphill mountani in terms of the amount of obstacles our species faces. The fact is, that our "natural" lifestyle (i.e. no technology) would see our infant mortality rates soar, our general lifespan shrink, we'd have no medicines or treatments for all these disorders and diseases that this "loving God" has provided us with, we'd not be able to provide enough food for everyone (not that we can even do that with our current state), other than fire and our own bodies, we'd have no source of heat except fire, we'd have no infrastructure, we'd have nowhere to run from the cold or a storm, we'd be more vulnerable to animals attacking us, and have no methods of protecting ourselves from harmfull infections and bacteria.
To make things worse, we're situated on a planet that can only support life on some of it's surface, some of the time, we're placed (and dependent on) a giant nuclear reactor, that will one day go Supernova (although we're talking millions if no billions of years), we're in a tiny soalr system with what appears to be not other planets capable of realistically being colonized - some fantastic design eh?
Do you think I'm being paranoid/negatively focused, or uneasy and panicked? Nope, I'm being honest.
As to Azakel and Riverwolf, please explain to me these other God concepts. Of course I'm referring to the Monotheistic model here.
Humanity is in a constant state of struggle, and climbing an endless uphill mountani in terms of the amount of obstacles our species faces. The fact is, that our "natural" lifestyle (i.e. no technology) would see our infant mortality rates soar, our general lifespan shrink, we'd have no medicines or treatments for all these disorders and diseases that this "loving God" has provided us with, we'd not be able to provide enough food for everyone (not that we can even do that with our current state), other than fire and our own bodies, we'd have no source of heat except fire, we'd have no infrastructure, we'd have nowhere to run from the cold or a storm, we'd be more vulnerable to animals attacking us, and have no methods of protecting ourselves from harmfull infections and bacteria.
To make things worse, we're situated on a planet that can only support life on some of it's surface, some of the time, we're placed (and dependent on) a giant nuclear reactor, that will one day go Supernova (although we're talking millions if no billions of years), we're in a tiny soalr system with what appears to be not other planets capable of realistically being colonized - some fantastic design eh?
Do you think I'm being paranoid/negatively focused, or uneasy and panicked? Nope, I'm being honest.
As to Azakel and Riverwolf, please explain to me these other God concepts. Of course I'm referring to the Monotheistic model here.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
"Wouldn't it be more simple if God just created little robots which had no choice but to act as though they loved God? Simple doesn't mean better."
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting that the removal of natural distasters, birth defects and diseases etc would some how also remove our free will with it?
"Wouldn't forcing people into equal status violate free will? Why not the whole universe? Wouldn't that violate the free will on some other entity (ET, Demons, etc)? And as far as birth goes even if we presume that all actions in the universe are the will of God (presuming that he does not limit himself to all for actual free will, rather than merely the illusion of free will), then why is it that all of this is bad? Isn't keeping horrible genetics out of our main gene pool a good thing? Why even "allow" them in the first place? Because altering the genetic code to suit God's fancy = building robots."
I'm not talking about equal status, or making everybody identical, what I'm saying is giving people an equal chance to survive; to put everyone on the same starting line and then let them life. Rather than just killing off countless unborn babies thanks to birth defects, disease, ill health of the Mother's etc, and what - just to remove bad DNA that really shouldn't have been there in the first place?
Tell me, how would God removing bad DNA from Humaity before he even created us affect out free will?
Tell me, how would God deciding to end natural disasters/diseases affect our free will?
Tell me, how would God birthing us with a lesser need for food/water, or creating a basic society that gives everyone an equal shot at life affect our free will?
"False dichotomy. God could have power and choose not to intervene because to do otherwise would be to violate the principle of free will (either literally or in spirit). I.E. God will not directly contradict/interfere with any "mortal" agency and as such anyone who proceeds to unmake whatever "Good" changes God has wrought would go unchallenged."
I think you're presuming I want God to intervene and control us entirely, and stop us from falling over and grazing our knees, or to stop a critic or bully, that is however not the case.
I'm talking about things which in most respects are out of Human's control (like natural distasters, diseases, need for food/water - whilst most "natural" untouched sources are either unedible or such a low quality it could kill us, things like maybe not having Water - the source of life, also be capable of transmitting disease, y' know things like that. I do not know why having God get rid of them would impact our free will at all. Giventhat I'm using the Monotheistic God model (the one is claimed to be Omni-potent) then yes he would be able to control everything/anything in life, including things in the universe and with aliens. Again, I don't see how ridding Humanity and Earth of natural, (for the most part) uncontrollable disasters and problems, and giving each Human a fair shot at survival would jeopadize the free will of ET or Demons.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting that the removal of natural distasters, birth defects and diseases etc would some how also remove our free will with it?
"Wouldn't forcing people into equal status violate free will? Why not the whole universe? Wouldn't that violate the free will on some other entity (ET, Demons, etc)? And as far as birth goes even if we presume that all actions in the universe are the will of God (presuming that he does not limit himself to all for actual free will, rather than merely the illusion of free will), then why is it that all of this is bad? Isn't keeping horrible genetics out of our main gene pool a good thing? Why even "allow" them in the first place? Because altering the genetic code to suit God's fancy = building robots."
I'm not talking about equal status, or making everybody identical, what I'm saying is giving people an equal chance to survive; to put everyone on the same starting line and then let them life. Rather than just killing off countless unborn babies thanks to birth defects, disease, ill health of the Mother's etc, and what - just to remove bad DNA that really shouldn't have been there in the first place?
Tell me, how would God removing bad DNA from Humaity before he even created us affect out free will?
Tell me, how would God deciding to end natural disasters/diseases affect our free will?
Tell me, how would God birthing us with a lesser need for food/water, or creating a basic society that gives everyone an equal shot at life affect our free will?
"False dichotomy. God could have power and choose not to intervene because to do otherwise would be to violate the principle of free will (either literally or in spirit). I.E. God will not directly contradict/interfere with any "mortal" agency and as such anyone who proceeds to unmake whatever "Good" changes God has wrought would go unchallenged."
I think you're presuming I want God to intervene and control us entirely, and stop us from falling over and grazing our knees, or to stop a critic or bully, that is however not the case.
I'm talking about things which in most respects are out of Human's control (like natural distasters, diseases, need for food/water - whilst most "natural" untouched sources are either unedible or such a low quality it could kill us, things like maybe not having Water - the source of life, also be capable of transmitting disease, y' know things like that. I do not know why having God get rid of them would impact our free will at all. Giventhat I'm using the Monotheistic God model (the one is claimed to be Omni-potent) then yes he would be able to control everything/anything in life, including things in the universe and with aliens. Again, I don't see how ridding Humanity and Earth of natural, (for the most part) uncontrollable disasters and problems, and giving each Human a fair shot at survival would jeopadize the free will of ET or Demons.
We seemed to do just fine for thousands of years.
For many, life is a struggle to survive. For many, life is taken for granted. I say the one who struggles is wiser, because he knows that he could die at any time. Anyone who takes life for granted is a fool. (This includes me; it's something I'm working on.)
And frankly, there is bad that comes from modern healthcare: overpopulation choking the planet. (Don't get me wrong; I am grateful for most of what it provides.)
In about 5,000,000,000 years, the sun will expand to engulf the first two planets and push earth a bit further from orbit. After a few million years of this, it will cool down into a white dwarf. Scientists have already determined this.
No supernova for our sun; it's nowhere near massive enough.
You're being uninformed. That's okay, as long as you are willing to accept it if and when you realize it.
"The Lord is enshrined in the hearts of all.
The Lord is the Supreme Reality.
Rejoice in Him through renunciation.
Covet nothing; all belong to the Lord."
-Isha Upanishad 1:1
"Truth is One, Sages call it by many names."
-Rig Veda
"Whatever exists and wherever it exists is permeated by the same divine power and force."
-Yajur Veda
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
The ideas presented cover all possibilities. If we agree that there is suffering in the world (and it would be foolhardy not to), then that means God is clearly not stopping them from occuring. Either he would like to stop them, but cannot, or He does not care to stop them. What other possibility do you propose?