What's Wrong With Suffering?

[sandy whitelinger]

So? Do you avoid every thing you dislike? Why don’t you like it?

I don't have a slot in my daytimer for it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That would be one way to do it, yes.

For example, eating a peanut doesn’t involve any suffering at all for most people, but involves quite a bit of suffering for people allergic to peanuts.

So I remove the perception of suffering. Then what? I see someone crushed in a car and say that they're not suffering?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't have a slot in my daytimer for it.

So...
- you avoid stepping in dog crap because you don’t like it.
- you dislike it not because you think it’s bad, but because you haven’t scheduled stepping in dog crap.

I get that you’re making this nonsense up as you go, but at least try to be a bit coherent.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There's nothing inherently wrong with suffering in a world governed by natural, physical laws where suffering is a necessary result of living.

There is something wrong with suffering in a world created by an all-powerful being capable of creating any world of any kind (including a world without suffering) and that supposedly wants its creation to be happy, rendering suffering completely unnecessary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So I remove the perception of suffering. Then what? I see someone crushed in a car and say that they're not suffering?

Not the perception of suffering; the suffering itself. If someone in a car crash isn’t hurt or shaken at all, then we could acknowledge that they weren’t suffering.

Or... if the person crushed in a car is dead, then we can acknowledge that this person isn’t suffering any more (although their death may cause suffering for other people).

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So...
- you avoid stepping in dog crap because you don’t like it.
- you dislike it not because you think it’s bad, but because you haven’t scheduled stepping in dog crap.

I get that you’re making this nonsense up as you go, but at least try to be a bit coherent.

Cleaning mess off my shoes takes time. Interruptions to my schedule are unproductive. Suffering can ruin a whole week. Yet *hit happens. I don't schedule it. When it happens I deal with it. I find judge it as good or bad.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Not the perception of suffering; the suffering itself. If someone in a car crash isn’t hurt or shaken at all, then we could acknowledge that they weren’t suffering.

Or... if the person crushed in a car is dead, then we can acknowledge that this person isn’t suffering any more (although their death may cause suffering for other people).

You totally missed the point and I didn't schedule a correction slot in my morning daytimer. No time for suffering this am. Maybe this evening.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You totally missed the point and I didn't schedule a correction slot in my morning daytimer. No time for suffering this am. Maybe this evening.

I can only work with what you give me. If you didn’t get your point across, then maybe you should express it more clearly.

 

[Kenny]

Instead of quibbling over the quality

One person's quibbling is another person's important subject. Is there a solid line?

consider this then. One event happens to two people. One suffers and one doesn't. Clearly it's not the event bit the expression of the individual. This means all God has to do is change people so they have no capacity to suffer. Life would be good then.

Can you give an example?

 

[Koldo]

Liver must be bad then as well.

I suppose you mean eating liver ?
Bad for the person eating it I presume ?

Bingo!
Eating liver is bad to you if you dislike eating liver.
Next topic please.

 

[Koldo]

So I remove the perception of suffering. Then what? I see someone crushed in a car and say that they're not suffering?

This is like the blind man saying colors don't exist.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I put this in the Religious Debate section because I often hear that God is bad because He allows suffering. Alright, pony up. What's wrong with suffering.

Nothing--if you're a believer. The NT lists over 30 benefits/positive effects of suffering for Christians.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nothing--if you're a believer. The NT lists over 30 benefits/positive effects of suffering for Christians.

Are any of them based on the idea that suffering can be good in and of itself, or are all of them based on promises that the suffering will come as a package deal with something else that will be good enough to make up for the negative of the suffering?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Suffering can have benefits, but as a lot of others have stated, it takes moderation. And that's the crux of it... as soon as something is more detrimental than it will ever be beneficial to the individual doing the suffering, then that is, by definition, "bad." There's really no way around that.

 

[ajay0]

Too much of suffering can cause psychological and physiological damage. People have been heard of suffering from fatal heart attacks or other physical issues after heaing some really bad news. Some develop neuroses and even psychosis.

I heard of a talented footballer today who committed suicide upon going through a bout of depression, after being struck by injury which prevented his playing football.

I was contemplating then on the fact that perhaps mental and physical conditioning in sports may not be enough to build the necessary emotional quotient in sportsmen to ensure immunity from emotional issues and turmoil.

 

[viole]

Suffering is the state of undergoing pain, distress or hardship.

I see no correlation between positive and suffering either. I see no correlation between suffering and good and bad, right and wrong or righteous or evil. It just is.

Most think it's wrong because they don't like it.

Do you think happiness, well being, living a long life with your loved ones, etc. are good things? If yes, why?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sealchan]

Interesting thread and I think some see it as too obvious to see the value in discussing it.

Here are some principles I apply to understanding the role and value of suffering in our human experience and in relationship with a belief in God:

• Life was created in a way that its creation and preservation requires the death of other life
• Both believers and non-believers experience suffering; it is a given in life. Those who don't think they do deny reality
• Those who believe in a sentient being who not only created our reality, but also is responsible for our experience in that reality, have someone to relate to about that experience and who may be empowered to offer some form of comfort, if not relief
• The experience of suffering is an evolutionarily evolved psychological experience that guides the individual organism into making choices to promote its individual or its group's longevity. It is a key aspect of our psychological will to live and exert ourselves in an effort to live
• Human beings, with their advanced cognitive skills, are able to freely choose suffering for a goal that will net them greater success further down the road

I think that one of the great problematic understandings of reading the Bible is to believe that the Bible shows us the way to AVOID suffering. That if we are righteous, we won't hurt. This is childish and just plain against the facts of experience for either believers or non-believers.

The Bible is full of descriptions of the suffering of its people and it would not be accurate to say that suffering is completely encompassed by the sins of those who suffer. However, the focus of the Bible is on showing convincingly that if you act a certain way, you will avoid some measure of suffering. So the Bible does read as if all suffering can be dismissed by people who avoid sin. At the same time there is no real way to avoid sin completely and the one person, in the Bible's view, who did died at a young age as a result. So there you go. Suffering is inevitable.

My overall wisdom on this is that suffering is unavoidable, but it is far better to choose your suffering than it is to let suffering choose you. This IS the message that religion SHOULD be providing, but so often something more simplistic and attractive is what is provided.

In many cases the Bible's stories tell of great suffering and the main concern is to focus those who are greatly suffering on their path to their relief and salvation. We, who, perhaps, suffer not so much, then mistake this for a proactive means to escape all suffering and sin. But such a view is untenable and unexperiencable. It is not life or living a life to avoid all pain.

Once God is seen as responsible for creation and for the suffering that results, then we inevitably ask whether in many cases that suffering, for which God is ultimately responsible whether or not the one who suffers has sinned or not, is an example of fairness or justice. That is a good, hard question and I think that the Book of Job addresses that question fairly directly, but not directly enough to be not subject to debate. The answer, I think, is that life requires death to exist...so what exactly seems fair in this context?

On this question there should be no dispute about the basic facts of our existence between believers and non-believers.

I should add that the tradition of the Goddess has answers to the meaning and value of the life-death-rebirth cycle that the Bible has tried to circumvent. Obviously Jesus' ministry fits this pattern, but again, it has had to divorce itself from the Goddess tradition in order to preserve the highly patriarchal attitude of the Bible. Still the authors of the Bible and their inspiration is mindful, albeit indirectly, of the same mysteries of our experience as are the Goddess traditions.

 

[Willamena]

I put this in the Religious Debate section because I often hear that God is bad because He allows suffering. Alright, pony up. What's wrong with suffering.

What is wrong with suffering is that it is unnecessary.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Suffering can have benefits, but as a lot of others have stated, it takes moderation. And that's the crux of it... as soon as something is more detrimental than it will ever be beneficial to the individual doing the suffering, then that is, by definition, "bad." There's really no way around that.

Agreed.

I'd say that one can only define suffering as beneficial if it causes a net reduction in suffering. Somebody mentioned the pain of a hypodermic needle, as with a medical therapy, or the pain of a hot pan. That kind of suffering is only called good because it can prevent greater suffering later, such as polio or 3rd degree burns of the hands.

And if they could eliminate the pain of injection, then that would be better.

So, there is nothing good about suffering except the kind that diminishes greater future suffering, meaning that gratuitous suffering is undesirable, and causing or allowing it is immoral. This is why many find the God of the Christian Bible immoral as described. It is the same reason that we would call anybody that increased the suffering in the world immoral, not just gods

Understanding that and applying it to the interest of populations would be the fundamental principle of utilitarian ethics - the greatest good and most satisfaction for the greatest number, and minimizing net distributed harm or suffering.

This seems to be a significant departure from Christian ethics, where, as we have seen on this thread, enduring gratuitous suffering is often considered a virtue - a kiss from Jesus - even a privilege if one suffers for God, which rejects retributive justice.

Who's going to make such a claim but someone telling us that we are being watched over by an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful god as horrible things happen to good people. It's got to be part of the plan, which means there is goodness and holiness there somewhere even if our puny minds can't apprehend it. What else can you say?

 

[Firestorm77]

Human beings experience pain, but they also experience happiness. This is what makes this life a wonderful experience. An unchanging/static world would be boring and pointless.