Suffering and evil

[Hockeycowboy]

Here is a video that explains it in a simple illustrative way.

Love that video, nPeace!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Democracy was not "invented" in the17th. century.

No, and that was not the claim. The Enlightenment transformed the West from principally medieval monarchies to modern, liberal, social democracies with guaranteed personal rights, which vastly improved the quality of life for many in the way described. It's why you don't live in a country like Iran, Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia, where the Enlightenment has had little to no influence.

from the point of view of global median wealth, you mean? Is that your "benchmark" for success and quality of life?

No. Quality of light is evaluated using a variety of factors that vary in which are selected and how their weighted in the final assessment. Besides wealth, which is a proxy for food and shelter security and the ability to purchase, employment rate is a factor, access to electricity and clean water, environmental factors (pollution, extreme weather), physical and mental health including average lifespan, leisure time and recreation access, safety and security (crime, war), and freedom. These are the things that make life good when present and shorter and harder when not.

When you look at one of the quality of life indices, you'll see Western democracies, especially Scandinavian countries, leading the list. They are a gift of the Enlightenment and humanism.

And what you call usuary is what I call financing purchases, which helped me considerably in life. I financed an education that I couldn't have afforded without the earning power that education provided, which allowed me to repay student loans. My first office was opened with a bank loan. My homes and cars were financed. Today, I have no debt.

Contrast that with my new country, Mexico, where mortgages are rare. A 30-something Mexican acquaintance has been building a house for his family for years now, making progress when he saves up some more money. He has just recently occupied it, though it's not finished. There is something to be said for that. He has never been in debt and still isn't, but that wouldn't have worked as well for me as financing purchases.

The question of what God is like?

That wasn't the question. It probably isn't worth repeating, since as I predicted, you wouldn't give a direct or responsive answer. It required you to imagine that you have died and awakened to an afterlife and creators you didn't expect. You expected the Christian god and its judgment according to rules you learned while alive, which life you led, but then were questioned by creators with different expectations for how you lived life when they gave you the twin faculties of reason and conscience to discern what is true and what is good, but and you chose faith and received morals instead. These would likely be gentle beings with humanistic values, since those derive directly from the application of those two faculties, and not punish you, because why would they? That would be gratuitous suffering of benefit to nobody but harm to you. But they might ask you why you chose the path you did.

It's apparently a tall task for many believers, and why I predicted that you would not consider the question seriously. It's probably considered dangerous thought by the believer, who is admonished not to go there. His church doesn't want him holding such thoughts, and nor does he for fear of his faith unraveling as a result and possibly even the loss of his salvation for it for what he may perceive to be a thought crime.

Most comfortable, wealthy people are selfish and actually give less than people with less.

I thought we were talking about suffering. You had written, "the greatest good for man may very well be suffering" and I asked how that might be possible. Your words don't address that. Infact, if you find suffering helpful, why disapprove of the selfish, who are indifferent to the suffering of others in need, when it is the generous who are reliving that desirable suffering? This is a problem with your thought, which I also identified as potentially harmful with examples from Mother Teresa and my own experience in hospice.

You tend to ignore the hard questions, which I understand, but that is answer enough.

And I disagree with your comment. If by wealthy you mean people that live comfortably, which are largely middle and upper middle-class people - my demographic - I disagree that they are properly characterized as selfish or give less than people with less. I would agree that you are correct when describing the very wealthy, but those are generally people driven by the pursuit of wealth. Some have fallen into great wealth and have been generous (athletes, lottery winners), and some are just generous despite being ambitious (Gates, Buffet), but I don't expect those values from somebody driven to accumulate wealth like Trump or Kirshner or Mnuchin or Kurshner or Musk.

My social circle comprises such people, now all comfortably retired on a mountain lake among a less prosperous culture, and most involved with local charities. They're mostly decent people grateful for the opportunity they had, mostly politically liberal (American conservatives don't want to live with Mexicans or cobblestones streets), with a happy outlook on life on life.

And incidentally, I don't consider tithing charitable giving, since most of that money goes to promoting religion and not to the needy or the betterment of man. When our locals, most with little to give, give to their parish church, the money is never seen again. The church spends virtually nothing on local charities, even the Catholic orphanage, which is staffed by nuns, but underwritten principally by local donations.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And what you call usury is what I call financing purchases, which helped me considerably in life. I financed an education that I couldn't have afforded without the earning power that education provided, which allowed me to repay student loans. My first office was opened with a bank loan. My homes and cars were financed. Today, I have no debt..

..and what does this show?
..because you have benefited from it, is not indicative of its moral standing.

Contrast that with my new country, Mexico, where mortgages are rare..

Why would you want to bring to my attention the inequality in the world?

..better to stick to what we were discussing .. inequality and growing enmity, and its causes.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That wasn't the question. It probably isn't worth repeating, since as I predicted, you wouldn't give a direct or responsive answer. It required you to imagine that you have died and awakened to an afterlife and creators you didn't expect. You expected the Christian god and its judgment according to rules you learned while alive, which life you led, but then were questioned by creators with different expectations for how you lived life when they gave you the twin faculties of reason and conscience to discern what is true and what is good, but and you chose faith and received morals instead. These would likely be gentle beings with humanistic values, since those derive directly from the application of those two faculties, and not punish you, because why would they? That would be gratuitous suffering of benefit to nobody but harm to you. But they might ask you why you chose the path you did.

It's apparently a tall task for many believers, and why I predicted that you would not consider the question seriously. It's probably considered dangerous thought by the believer, who is admonished not to go there. His church doesn't want him holding such thoughts, and nor does he for fear of his faith unraveling as a result and possibly even the loss of his salvation for it for what he may perceive to be a thought crime.

I don't see the problem. Reason and conscience are part of faith. People of true faith have a well defined conscience. Reason isn't the opposite of faith. We all ask ourselves the reasons for our faith and actions, one would hope.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The church spends virtually nothing on local charities, even the Catholic orphanage, which is staffed by nuns, but underwritten principally by local donations.

Then you just need to find a better church to support.

 

[nPeace]

Okay. Do those in a heavenly state of being suffer?

If they do, what purpose does their suffering serve?

According to the Bible, they are no physical beings in heaven, and so they cannot suffer, since spirit is not affected by anything material.
However, they are described as being mentally aware, and so, the Bible says this...
(Luke 15:7) . . .there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents. . .
Other verses show that the angels rejoice, and scriptures show that God is saddened at things that are done contrary to what is good.

So, it would depends on if one considers that suffering.
Those in heaven do not suffer in any other way though... according to the Bible.

If they don't, why not just start people in that state to begin with? If an omnipotent God sets the rules, any restrictions on what can or can't be done would be entirely up to that God to decide. That would very much include the criteria for what's required for spiritual growth. You would still need to contend with why people suffer needlessly if a state of non-suffering is attainable.

If people were started in that state, then they would not be people. They would be spirit beings.
Since God has spirit beings in heaven, one would have to ask, what would be the purpose of creating more?

The Bible tells us that God created other forms of life.
(1 Corinthians 15:39-40) 39 . . .Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, there is another flesh of cattle, another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 And there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort.

One may ask, 'Well, why?'
When we look at the variety of life forms, it's easy to see why, I think.
I still marvel at the design of the different creatures... even man. We are truly a marvel of design.
I see God's love and wisdom in the variety of life he made.

It makes sense that God's love moved him, as the source of life, to give life to other forms of matter.
However, they would not all be the same. Nor could they live the same.
Hence, the scriptures tell us, God made a home for each.
(Psalm 115:16) . . .As for the heavens, they belong to Jehovah, But the earth he has given to the sons of men.

It sort of gives me a picture of what life may be like in the distant future. Might God create new life forms? We don't know, but God certainly has the power, and ability to, and if he has the will to, then that's what will be.

Fair enough, I don't expect you to know for certain why we exist. I can respect the view that sometimes we just have to do the best we can to arrive at what seems like a reasonable conclusion.

The Bible tells us why we exist.
Genesis 1:26-31; Isaiah 45:18; Acts of the Apostles 17:24-28; Genesis 5:2

The Bible also tells us why evil exists.
In fact, the Bible tells us everything we need to know about God, life, and any question we may have concerning these, which many religious leaders tell us they cannot answer.

Is there any question you have, which you did not get answered... perhaps in church, at home, or somewhere else?
Please feel free to ask.

My conclusion is that if a creator God does exist, then that God isn't omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. It may possess none, one or two of those qualities but not all three at once.

Just to be sure I understand you, since these words can mean different things to different people... can you briefly explain each of those word meaning, the way you understand them?

 

[nPeace]

I do not think you have been around abuse victims. Many do not have compassion for others. Perhaps you have never worked with the mentally insane, perhaps you have not worked with infants addicted to drugs from the womb

Yes, some kinds of suffering are beneficial, other suffering is not. Those who live a sheltered life, without exposure to severe suffering, rationalize their privilege with *god*.

Telling little kids they need to go through hell to fully appreciate others, or go through hell to be refined, is telling them they are evil and sinful (unlike the privileged preacher who was not equally *tested*). Do those from privileged background believe they needed less refinement? They are chosen, better than, and everyone born into war/abuse/poverty deserved what they get because *aporeciation*, &refinement- must need more pain to shape them?


Religious communities increase the suffering of victims with rationalizations that abuse etc refines. (It doesn't always refine, it doesn't make you appreciate anything, it increases fear, legitimate trust issues, legitimate attachment issues).

Might I suggest all the religious people out there please stop further victimizing / victim blaming. It is quite evil, this teaching that abuse *refines* and is *good for you*.

I tend to agree with those who find it hard to accept that suffering is a necessary thing.
I don't think one has to fall off a cliff to understand what a broken hand feels like.
Our intelligence... if it is far better than it is currently... due of course to a number of things - far removed from God's thinking, and flawed with fallen humans' thinking, would know that a rock's surface is far more solid than our bones, and so, we don't need a fall to learn that.

The Bible does not agree with that concept either. James 1:13-15 ...For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone. ...

God allows suffering in this world, yes, but until all things are made new.
In the new world, there will be people who never experience suffering... ever. So that alone tells us the concept is wrong.
Suffering will be removed, because it was... is not in harmony with God's purpose.
(Revelation 21:4) And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

God allowed suffering knowing full well that the above prophecy is as good as fulfilled.
(Romans 8:20) . . .For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

..and what does this show? ..because you have benefited from it, is not indicative of its moral standing.

My moral judgments are based in human (and animal) wellbeing. I find nothing immoral about charging interest. Do you object to getting bank interest on your saving? Is that immoral you?

Why would you want to bring to my attention the inequality in the world? ..better to stick to what we were discussing .. inequality and growing enmity, and its causes.

Morality for the humanist includes diminishing that. And growing enmity is very much connected to growing inequity.

People of true faith have a well defined conscience.

They will often ignore it in the face of religious dicta that the humanist, who relies on conscience alone to decide what is good and what is right, deems immoral. Did you see the thread on Baha'i homophobia? Every one was committed to the belief that homosexuality is immoral. I am certain that none would believe that without somebody telling them to believe it. The abortion debate is another example. People without religion generally find restricting choice immoral.

Reason isn't the opposite of faith.

Faith is a departure from reason.

We all ask ourselves the reasons for our faith and actions

You're conflating two different meanings of reason. Reasons need not be the result of valid reasoning. If your reason for doing something is based in faith, it is not born of reason.

Then you just need to find a better church to support.

I guess you didn't notice that I consider churches unworthy of my support. Children in an orphanage, yes, but churches, no. They're essentially self-licking ice cream cones, or self-perpetuating systems that have no purpose except to a handful making money other than to sustain themselves. In the case of the church, it is a way for people to make a living without laboring or generating anything of value except the comfort it causes its adherents to depend on it for. Religions like that create a fictitious need for what they are selling, and only they have the cure for that need. They create a dependence on themselves that becomes more difficult to break as the decades pass. Eventually, the believer can no longer face the world without these beliefs. It's a lot like smoking. Cigarettes, also a self-licking ice cream cone, create a need that only they can fulfill, a need that becomes harder to defy as the years go on, and one that is a net harm to society.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I guess you didn't notice that I consider churches unworthy of my support. Children in an orphanage, yes, but churches, no. They're essentially self-licking ice cream cones, or self-perpetuating systems that have no purpose except to a handful making money other than to sustain themselves.

Hogwash. I happen to support a church that gives away lots to the needy.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Faith is a departure from reason.

Only in your mind.

 

[Wildswanderer]

They will often ignore it in the face of religious dicta that the humanist, who relies on conscience alone to decide what is good and what is right, deems immoral. Did you see the thread on Baha'i homophobia? Every one was committed to the belief that homosexuality is immoral. I am certain that none would believe that without somebody telling them to believe it. The abortion debate is another example. People without religion generally find restricting choice immoral.

People with a conscience generally find killing thier off spring immoral.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you object to getting bank interest on your saving?

Yes, I do. I understand the argument of my Lord.
The charging of interest on loans is immoral, because it inrceases wealth for "the haves" and oppresses the "have-nots".
It might not seem relevant to you on a small-scale basis..
..but when you appreciate that the whole financial system is based on it, there is only one way to go.

Those with money will increase their capital sum WITH NO EFFORT OR WORK, while those at the bottom of the ladder are squeezed.
There is only so much wealth in the world. The financial system ensures the wealthy will get wealthier.
This is what I see. Those who prefer to "look the other way" most likely are the ones who are gaining from it .. who claim to be peacemakers.

 

[nPeace]

Only in your mind.

...and skeptics alike.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The charging of interest on loans is immoral, because it inrceases wealth for "the haves" and oppresses the "have-nots".

I disagree. Yes, the way America does it now is obscene, giving depositors 1% interest and charging them 30% on credit card interest, and loan sharking is immoral, but there are health and constructive banking practices that include charging interest that are helpful.

I just saw It's A Wonderful Life again, which featured an honest banker who made lives better with house loans - a cental fact of the story that showed us how his world would have been if the other banker had absorbed that loaning institution. That's how my life went as well, as well as the lives of just about everybody else I know. But your religion teaches you otherwise, so that's the reality for you - shylocks all.

Those with money will increase their capital sum WITH NO EFFORT OR WORK, while those at the bottom of the ladder are squeezed.

Not in a well-regulated social democracy which limits predatory practices.

I suppose you object to property appreciating as well, since it represents increased wealth without work.

There is only so much wealth in the world. The financial system ensures the wealthy will get wealthier.

In 20th century America, the middle class grew thanks to a relatively well regulated form of capitalism with a more equal distribution of wealth due to higher taxes for the wealthy, and a variety of innovations to protect workers such as a social safety net, child labor laws, tax deferred savings instruments and employer matching funds, and collective bargaining. Then the people you rightly condemn began to change that, and yes, the wealthy became obscenely rich and the middle class shrank. The problem isn't capitalism, but unregulated capitalism - Dickensian capitalism and robber baron capitalism.

I happen to support a church that gives away lots to the needy.

I'll bet it's less than 10% of its budget, and I'll also bet that most adherents are not allowed to look at the books. If so, less that 10% of your donation is helping the needy. All of my donations are working to help worthy recipients. How do I know? I only give locally. I know the people running the charities I give to. I know how they live. They're neighbors. I know their characters. We will be eating dinner with one Thursday.

And we see what they accomplish. Here are three dog rescue and placement centers in our village. We see photos of the dogs and their adoptive parents. One of our dogs came from Lucky Dog, the other from The Ranch. There are no costly administration fees (all volunteers) or fund-raising expenses, which is all done on Facebook and with local fundraiser events. This where our charitable dollars go, not churches.

Only in your mind.

Actually, in a lot of minds. You can claim reason for yourself, but if your arguments are fallacious, the claim is rejected. Let me say this again - there is no sound argument that ends with "therefore God." If there were, you or anybody else could make it, and others qualified to judge the argument would agree with you. So, if you hold that belief, you did not come to it using reason, so the only way you can hold that belief is by faith, a violation of the laws of reasoning called a non sequitur - the name for any claim not supported by what preceded it.

People with a conscience generally find killing thier off spring immoral.

Actually, the majority of people with well-developed consciences who do not accept Christian doctrine on the matter support reproductive rights. The enemies of those rights are almost all religious. That's how you know that it is the latter who have been indoctrinated. Most of the world has recently been horrified by how the Afghanis and Iranis treat women. Guess who isn't. Muslim indoctrinees. This is how we can distinguish organic outrage from manufactured outrage. Only the former cuts across multiple demographics, whereas the latter is found concentrated in clusters of indoctrinated people.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I suppose you object to property appreciating as well, since it represents increased wealth without work..

Property prices increase for many reasons .. supply and demand for example, but also are dependent on the availability of credit.

The problem isn't capitalism, but unregulated capitalism..

Well, it would be a good start to regulate it, but while people believe that usury is a "good thing", it is not likely to change.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

My moral judgments are based in human (and animal) wellbeing. I find nothing immoral about charging interest. Do you object to getting bank interest on your saving? Is that immoral you?

Morality for the humanist includes diminishing that. And growing enmity is very much connected to growing inequity.

They will often ignore it in the face of religious dicta that the humanist, who relies on conscience alone to decide what is good and what is right, deems immoral. Did you see the thread on Baha'i homophobia? Every one was committed to the belief that homosexuality is immoral. I am certain that none would believe that without somebody telling them to believe it. The abortion debate is another example. People without religion generally find restricting choice immoral.

Faith is a departure from reason.

You're conflating two different meanings of reason. Reasons need not be the result of valid reasoning. If your reason for doing something is based in faith, it is not born of reason.

I guess you didn't notice that I consider churches unworthy of my support. Children in an orphanage, yes, but churches, no. They're essentially self-licking ice cream cones, or self-perpetuating systems that have no purpose except to a handful making money other than to sustain themselves. In the case of the church, it is a way for people to make a living without laboring or generating anything of value except the comfort it causes its adherents to depend on it for. Religions like that create a fictitious need for what they are selling, and only they have the cure for that need. They create a dependence on themselves that becomes more difficult to break as the decades pass. Eventually, the believer can no longer face the world without these beliefs. It's a lot like smoking. Cigarettes, also a self-licking ice cream cone, create a need that only they can fulfill, a need that becomes harder to defy as the years go on, and one that is a net harm to society.

I’ve been reading your posts, IANS, and find most of them insightful with important points that need to be made. So Kudos from me!

Except for comments such as these

Let me say this again - there is no sound argument that ends with "therefore God."

To me, it is a fallacious argument that posits the functional design we find in life can arise de novo by mindless processes. There is no concrete evidence that supports such a scenario. We’ve never observed any processes creating living systems through non living means…. Even under controlled & forced conditions, ie., in the lab.

If there were, ….others qualified to judge the argument would agree with you.

There are, but probably none you would agree with.
Granted, most scientists don’t, but they have fettered themselves with methods that don’t allow for something they can’t test.

(Now, what I follow this with, may seem like it’s not related, but bear with me
That still doesn’t negate the thousands upon thousands of events where people have experienced supernatural phenomena; one (of thousands) is Lincoln’s ghost, which I’ve posted on here several times….evidence of rational people interacting with an intelligent entity.

…that belief, you did not come to it using reason, so the only way ….. is by faith, a violation of the laws of reasoning

I (amicably) beg to differ: it is because of reason.
There’s something there: we just can’t test for it….yet.

And please don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe in ghosts, but I do believe based on the above and other sources, there are invisible entities that are trying — and in many aspects succeeding — to mislead mankind away from our Creator, through religious, and scientific and other secular, means.

And your statement, “If your reason for doing something is based in faith, it is not born of reason” could be shown as inaccurate, because I have “faith” in my friends based on reasoning. I know if they tell me something, I can trust it. The reputation they’ve built with me, I can rely on.

I wish you the best!

 

[Wildswanderer]

I'll bet it's less than 10% of its budget, and I'll also bet that most adherents are not allowed to look at the books.

You would lose those bets.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And we see what they accomplish. Here are three dog rescue and placement centers in our village. We see photos of the dogs and their adoptive parents. One of our dogs came from Lucky Dog, the other from The Ranch. There are no costly administration fees (all volunteers) or fund-raising expenses, which is all done on Facebook and with local fundraiser events. This where our charitable dollars go, not churches.

I'd rather help people than dogs.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Actually, the majority of people with well-developed consciences who do not accept Christian doctrine on the matter support reproductive rights

Then they don't have consciences at all, only justification for evil.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't see the problem. Reason and conscience are part of faith. People of true faith have a well defined conscience. Reason isn't the opposite of faith. We all ask ourselves the reasons for our faith and actions, one would hope.

Yes, why else would a person belong to a faith if he did Not really believe it was the right one______
After all, an inquiring mind wants to know