-
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!
Why are we allowed to suffer?
- Thread starter The Transcended Omniverse
- Start date
Akivah
Well-Known Member
There are several issues to address in your response.
1. Our souls are near eternal with no physical form and our bodies are a physical temporary shell. When we are born, our souls are implanted into a body. So we can't be born with a physical body into Heaven. Heaven doesn't have physical bodies in it. All of our suffering on Earth is from discomfort of the physical shell.
2. I don't know if we are fully blissful in the afterlife. We will be with G-d which is quite blissful. But I don't know if our souls could experience other emotions than bliss.
3. It isn't G-d that has much to do with our suffering on Earth. Most of it is caused by our own actions and bad choices.
MattMVS7 :
Hi, MattMVS7
I think your question in the OP as to why we are allowed to suffer various types of ills is a wonderful and important qutestion. The various Christian movements would probably approach your OP from multiple perspectives. I like the way suffering is justified in early Christian worldviews.
THE ETERNAL CONTEXT IN WHICH SUFFERING OCCURS
Firstly, I don’t think suffering can be justified without viewing it from an eternal perspective (i.e. the concept that individuals who suffer in this life will go on to live eternally in another life.
Secondly, I believe that to justify suffering, the suffering, in it’s various forms must be placed into a specific historical context of conditions (most of which we are unaware). For example, The early Judeo-Christians model that knowledge of prior events makes understandable current injustice (including suffering). Knowledge of prior events and purposes of God change the contextual viewpoints of this life, including our judgments of right; wrong and suffering.
For example, Rappaport, II, 263-266 relates the training Moses received when considering this point of perceived injustice and unnecessary suffering..
One day, while Moses was out tending sheep, he was meditating about life and it’s meaning when he noticed a traveler come and stop at the well to refresh himself. Unnoticed, a purse of money dropped out of his garments and fell on the ground before he continued on his journey. After a short while another traveller appeared. He refreshed himself with the cool water and, while standing near the well, found the money bag on the ground. He picked it up, rejoiced about the stroke of luck and went happily on his way.
Yet another stranger came after a while who also drank of the water from the well and then proceeded to take a nap nearby. Meanwhile, the first traveler had noticed the loss of his purse and hurriedly returned to the area since he surmised that he could have only lost it while refreshing himself at the well.
When he saw the sleeping man, he awakened him and asked him whether he had found the money, to which the other replied, truthfully, that he had not. However, the first stranger evidently did not believe the others assurance and after some accusations and shouting, a fight between the two ensued.
It was at this point Moses came running from his place of meditation to quell the disturbance and calm the tempers because he had witnessed what had happened. But it was too late. The man who had lost the purse had already killed the innocent man when Moses arrived at the scene. The prophet related his observations to the man, who was quite shaken at his deed, and departed in great sorrow over the loss of his possessions and the knowledge of having killed for no cause.
Moses was also shaken by this experience and he wondered deeply about the justice and benevolence of a God who had permitted such an act to happen.
Lord of the Universe, spoke Moses, “can it be thy will to punish the innocent and let prosper the guilty? The man who hath stolen the money bag is enjoying wealth which is not his, whilst the innocent man hath been slain. The owner of the money, too, hath not only lost his property, but his loss hath been the cause of his becoming a murderer. I fail to understand the ways of providence and workings of divine justice. O Almighty, reveal unto me Thy hidden ways that I may understand.”
And so the Lord proceeded to tell Moses why it was just. The man who had lost the money had inherited it from his father who, in turn, had stolen it from the father of the man who had found it. Therefore that situation had now been corrected. The man who had been killed, had in years past killed the brother of the man who had killed him during the quarrel. Said the Lord to Moses:
"Know then, O Moses, that I ordained it that the murderer should be put to death by the brother of the victim, whilst the son should find the money of which his father had once been robbed. My ways are inscrutable, and often the human mind wonders why the innocent suffer and the wicken prosper."
Thus the great prophet-leader was taught the ways and wisdom of God, how to deal with men and how to judge and how not to; all valuable lessons. (Ginzberg, II, 302; Philo, Vita Mosis, 1:12) especially in the context of your question about suffering in its various forms, and why such things exist in this life. The insight Moses needed to understand this inequitable suffering, was found in knowledge of the PAST he did not know.
Similarly, if one had knowledge of events that took place and the purposes life was to fulfill according to plans made before the creation of the earth the role of suffering may make more sense than it does without that same knowledge or belief set.
First, I think that the questions regarding why something that appears unjust and involving needless suffering or apparent evil that agnostics ask are GOOD questions, and in fact are no different than that of theists who are considering the same principles and trying to make sense of what they do not understand inside their religious beliefs. That is, these are legitimate questions.
Secondly, these questions cannot BE answered as efficiently and as accurately without having knowledge of the greater context in which they are happening. Prior to having the context explained to him, Moses was unable to justify what he saw as a morally unjustified occurrence UNTIL he was educated with further information and further context.
Thirdly, once the correct and accurate context is understood, then such occurrences and moral phenomena can be both understood and justifiable.
When one considers the moral phenomena INSIDE ancient Christian worldview, then they make more sense and can be justified. OUTSIDE of these contexts. Simply to say God is powerful and gets to do what he wants is insufficient. Context is important.
A SIMPLE MODEL OF JUSTIFYING A SPECIFIC TYPE OF TEMPORARY SUFFERING
For example, in the context of causing suffering to innocent infants and children, my own main employment in pediatric medicine involves causing suffering. All day long, for years, I have caused suffering to innocent children as part of my employment. For example, I either put needles into the skin of infants and innocent children or order someone else to do it. I often cut into the skin of innocent infants and children with small sharp knives and leave them with wounds that are painful and leave them suffering for some time. I occasionally will put staples into the skin of little children, sometimes in sensitive areas and sometimes without numbing the skin where I am puncturing their tender skin.
Not only do I cause pain, but I will, on purpose, push on a small childs belly with the express intent to cause that child pain simply to gain information. I will, on purpose, intentionally cause pain to a bone or joint of a small innocent child. I will, in fact, move bones in a small child that I already know are dislocated and which I know, beforehand, will cause this innocent child suffering and pain. Though I do this in order to reduce greater pain and harm.
Not only do I cause such suffering and pain, but I do it to some children that I love. Even the loving parents of these children know that I am going to cause suffering to their child and yet they want me to do it. And, despite my intentionally causing such pain and suffering, day in and day out, for years, both theists and non-theists continue to ask me to do things which will cause suffering to innocent infants and children that they truly and deeply love.
I asked one poster in this context : Is there any way I can justify causing the suffering of innocent infants and children in my work or is it simply evil for causing suffering as I am doing? Should I stop doing these things that I am doing?
The poster Draupadi offered a justification for the suffering I cause : “Look you do that to cure them.“ (post # 4025)
It is, in this way, that I can justify causing and a parent justifies allowing suffering to their innocent child.
If there is a spiritual equivalent purpose of "curing" or "education" or "benefit" that is involved in temporary suffering in life, then some temporary suffering is justifiable.
This observation forms a good base model for how early Christians justified suffering in this life.
Can I take this model just a bit further? In my office we justify causing pain when giving immunizations in the hope that performing a somewhat painful procedure now will both prevent greater specific future illness and suffering and improving long term happiness.
JUSTIFICATION OF SUFFERING
If one can justify the temporary suffering of innocents I cause in my medical role because I am ultimately benefiting them much more than a temporary and limited harm that is done to them, then God could be justified in early Christian theology in the same way IF the early Christians felt that the suffering in mortality was part of obtaining a much greater eternal benefit.
According to early texts, when God considered inaugurating this great plan for achieving eternal life of man, one great controversy and concern would be because the plan would entail mankind both doing and suffering evils upon the earth. My point in telling you this is that the context of these texts are not that of a Father who is punishing wayward children for their "evil" deeds or to make them "good" , but it is often in the context of a moral schooling and tutoring that was taking place.
The early Christian context of life as a moral tutoring is a good base model. That is, we are experiencing a school to which the spirits of mankind are embodied and sent to learn, by their own experiences, the principles of good and evil and to learn, by their own experiences, the consequences of both. In this model of moral education, temporary suffering and injustice, can be justified if it results in the moral education of a being that is learning profound lessons that will prepare that eternal being to ultimately live in harmony and joy with one another in a social heaven.
My point is that there are religious models for what is going on that justify temporary suffering and temporary injustice as part of a plan to ultimately create a system of morally educated beings who know and are motivated by their personal experience, NOT to do the very things that cause suffering and injustice and other social ills and thus avoid great evils in larger scale for a larger amount of time, etc.
In any case, I hope you find the answers that make sense to you regarding these issues.
Clear
τωακτωω
Hi, MattMVS7
I think your question in the OP as to why we are allowed to suffer various types of ills is a wonderful and important qutestion. The various Christian movements would probably approach your OP from multiple perspectives. I like the way suffering is justified in early Christian worldviews.
THE ETERNAL CONTEXT IN WHICH SUFFERING OCCURS
Firstly, I don’t think suffering can be justified without viewing it from an eternal perspective (i.e. the concept that individuals who suffer in this life will go on to live eternally in another life.
Secondly, I believe that to justify suffering, the suffering, in it’s various forms must be placed into a specific historical context of conditions (most of which we are unaware). For example, The early Judeo-Christians model that knowledge of prior events makes understandable current injustice (including suffering). Knowledge of prior events and purposes of God change the contextual viewpoints of this life, including our judgments of right; wrong and suffering.
For example, Rappaport, II, 263-266 relates the training Moses received when considering this point of perceived injustice and unnecessary suffering..
One day, while Moses was out tending sheep, he was meditating about life and it’s meaning when he noticed a traveler come and stop at the well to refresh himself. Unnoticed, a purse of money dropped out of his garments and fell on the ground before he continued on his journey. After a short while another traveller appeared. He refreshed himself with the cool water and, while standing near the well, found the money bag on the ground. He picked it up, rejoiced about the stroke of luck and went happily on his way.
Yet another stranger came after a while who also drank of the water from the well and then proceeded to take a nap nearby. Meanwhile, the first traveler had noticed the loss of his purse and hurriedly returned to the area since he surmised that he could have only lost it while refreshing himself at the well.
When he saw the sleeping man, he awakened him and asked him whether he had found the money, to which the other replied, truthfully, that he had not. However, the first stranger evidently did not believe the others assurance and after some accusations and shouting, a fight between the two ensued.
It was at this point Moses came running from his place of meditation to quell the disturbance and calm the tempers because he had witnessed what had happened. But it was too late. The man who had lost the purse had already killed the innocent man when Moses arrived at the scene. The prophet related his observations to the man, who was quite shaken at his deed, and departed in great sorrow over the loss of his possessions and the knowledge of having killed for no cause.
Moses was also shaken by this experience and he wondered deeply about the justice and benevolence of a God who had permitted such an act to happen.
Lord of the Universe, spoke Moses, “can it be thy will to punish the innocent and let prosper the guilty? The man who hath stolen the money bag is enjoying wealth which is not his, whilst the innocent man hath been slain. The owner of the money, too, hath not only lost his property, but his loss hath been the cause of his becoming a murderer. I fail to understand the ways of providence and workings of divine justice. O Almighty, reveal unto me Thy hidden ways that I may understand.”
And so the Lord proceeded to tell Moses why it was just. The man who had lost the money had inherited it from his father who, in turn, had stolen it from the father of the man who had found it. Therefore that situation had now been corrected. The man who had been killed, had in years past killed the brother of the man who had killed him during the quarrel. Said the Lord to Moses:
"Know then, O Moses, that I ordained it that the murderer should be put to death by the brother of the victim, whilst the son should find the money of which his father had once been robbed. My ways are inscrutable, and often the human mind wonders why the innocent suffer and the wicken prosper."
Thus the great prophet-leader was taught the ways and wisdom of God, how to deal with men and how to judge and how not to; all valuable lessons. (Ginzberg, II, 302; Philo, Vita Mosis, 1:12) especially in the context of your question about suffering in its various forms, and why such things exist in this life. The insight Moses needed to understand this inequitable suffering, was found in knowledge of the PAST he did not know.
Similarly, if one had knowledge of events that took place and the purposes life was to fulfill according to plans made before the creation of the earth the role of suffering may make more sense than it does without that same knowledge or belief set.
First, I think that the questions regarding why something that appears unjust and involving needless suffering or apparent evil that agnostics ask are GOOD questions, and in fact are no different than that of theists who are considering the same principles and trying to make sense of what they do not understand inside their religious beliefs. That is, these are legitimate questions.
Secondly, these questions cannot BE answered as efficiently and as accurately without having knowledge of the greater context in which they are happening. Prior to having the context explained to him, Moses was unable to justify what he saw as a morally unjustified occurrence UNTIL he was educated with further information and further context.
Thirdly, once the correct and accurate context is understood, then such occurrences and moral phenomena can be both understood and justifiable.
When one considers the moral phenomena INSIDE ancient Christian worldview, then they make more sense and can be justified. OUTSIDE of these contexts. Simply to say God is powerful and gets to do what he wants is insufficient. Context is important.
A SIMPLE MODEL OF JUSTIFYING A SPECIFIC TYPE OF TEMPORARY SUFFERING
For example, in the context of causing suffering to innocent infants and children, my own main employment in pediatric medicine involves causing suffering. All day long, for years, I have caused suffering to innocent children as part of my employment. For example, I either put needles into the skin of infants and innocent children or order someone else to do it. I often cut into the skin of innocent infants and children with small sharp knives and leave them with wounds that are painful and leave them suffering for some time. I occasionally will put staples into the skin of little children, sometimes in sensitive areas and sometimes without numbing the skin where I am puncturing their tender skin.
Not only do I cause pain, but I will, on purpose, push on a small childs belly with the express intent to cause that child pain simply to gain information. I will, on purpose, intentionally cause pain to a bone or joint of a small innocent child. I will, in fact, move bones in a small child that I already know are dislocated and which I know, beforehand, will cause this innocent child suffering and pain. Though I do this in order to reduce greater pain and harm.
Not only do I cause such suffering and pain, but I do it to some children that I love. Even the loving parents of these children know that I am going to cause suffering to their child and yet they want me to do it. And, despite my intentionally causing such pain and suffering, day in and day out, for years, both theists and non-theists continue to ask me to do things which will cause suffering to innocent infants and children that they truly and deeply love.
I asked one poster in this context : Is there any way I can justify causing the suffering of innocent infants and children in my work or is it simply evil for causing suffering as I am doing? Should I stop doing these things that I am doing?
The poster Draupadi offered a justification for the suffering I cause : “Look you do that to cure them.“ (post # 4025)
It is, in this way, that I can justify causing and a parent justifies allowing suffering to their innocent child.
If there is a spiritual equivalent purpose of "curing" or "education" or "benefit" that is involved in temporary suffering in life, then some temporary suffering is justifiable.
This observation forms a good base model for how early Christians justified suffering in this life.
Can I take this model just a bit further? In my office we justify causing pain when giving immunizations in the hope that performing a somewhat painful procedure now will both prevent greater specific future illness and suffering and improving long term happiness.
JUSTIFICATION OF SUFFERING
If one can justify the temporary suffering of innocents I cause in my medical role because I am ultimately benefiting them much more than a temporary and limited harm that is done to them, then God could be justified in early Christian theology in the same way IF the early Christians felt that the suffering in mortality was part of obtaining a much greater eternal benefit.
According to early texts, when God considered inaugurating this great plan for achieving eternal life of man, one great controversy and concern would be because the plan would entail mankind both doing and suffering evils upon the earth. My point in telling you this is that the context of these texts are not that of a Father who is punishing wayward children for their "evil" deeds or to make them "good" , but it is often in the context of a moral schooling and tutoring that was taking place.
The early Christian context of life as a moral tutoring is a good base model. That is, we are experiencing a school to which the spirits of mankind are embodied and sent to learn, by their own experiences, the principles of good and evil and to learn, by their own experiences, the consequences of both. In this model of moral education, temporary suffering and injustice, can be justified if it results in the moral education of a being that is learning profound lessons that will prepare that eternal being to ultimately live in harmony and joy with one another in a social heaven.
My point is that there are religious models for what is going on that justify temporary suffering and temporary injustice as part of a plan to ultimately create a system of morally educated beings who know and are motivated by their personal experience, NOT to do the very things that cause suffering and injustice and other social ills and thus avoid great evils in larger scale for a larger amount of time, etc.
In any case, I hope you find the answers that make sense to you regarding these issues.
Clear
τωακτωω
Skwim
Veteran Member
Considering right to be the antitheses of wrong: not wrong = right, then . . . . . unpleasantness should be regarded as right: morally good or correct. But what morally good do you see in unpleasantness? What is morally correct about unpleasantness?
.
Last edited:
buddhist
Well-Known Member
Whether or not there is an afterlife does not change the fact that there is suffering in the here-and-now, and that we can treat it.
It's like the simile of the wounded man who insists on asking "who made the arrow?", "who shot the arrow?", etc. instead of focusing on removing the arrow itself.
IMO I find it interesting that, in early Buddhism, when one focuses first on "removing the arrow" of suffering, the answers seem to come afterwards.
Last edited:
We are not inherently divine, we have to make ourselves as such. We do that through living, and with living comes suffering.
So let me question a few things that, I've now realized to make me better....
Are you a strict vegan?
Do you never drink alcohol?
Are you always respectful to everyone?
Do you spend all of your time serving Oneness?
Do you refuse wealth, and instead would rather everyone have equal?
Do you have no desires for material gain?
Are you completely free of attachment?
Do you have no idols?
This list could go on; yet hopefully you get the point....
We're all in this place as we're not pure, we're here to learn; yet some people have made ideologies, that misguide us all to what is required.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
We are discussing aspects of one's perceptions and I find it difficult if not impossible to qualify them as either right or wrong.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
What then is the difference between a person who suffers a hangnail and a parent who suffers the loss of a child?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
You are confusing the infliction of suffering with suffering. Straightforwardly there is nothing wrong with suffering so there is no need to stop it. We perceive our universe based on dualities. With out suffering there would be no perception of joy. Would you do away with joy as well?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Suffering is a qualitative state of mind. Some people suffer a loss by there favorite sports team. Some find the pain of childbirth to be exquisite. Where do we make distinctions then. Do we do away with pain or the perception of suffering?
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
Well...
Suffering as a concept is not really a bad thing...
BUT...
There is always a but...
Suffering, when not treated or on going, becomes despair... despair becomes anger, anger becomes violence, violence becomes ..well.. you know.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
I Agree...
The sooner people will understand that bad things just happen... its not a question of punishment or fate or all that bs...
Then, maybe our society will understand that we need to find a way to minimize the suffering of everyone.. regardless of beliefs, gender or whatever...
I don't see how that is relevant. i actually addressed the infliction of suffering, not suffering itself. I guess you attribute right/wrong labels to the infliction of suffering.
So, if this is the case, what labels would you attribute to these two cases:
1) a guy tortures a baby or, better, he sees a baby being tortured and does not intervene
2) a divinity sees that a baby will be born with a horrible and painful desease and does not intervene
Ciao
- viole
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
These are separate issues.
Since the OP addresses the suffering of innocent people and why that happens, I think it is revant to discuss the source of this suffering.
Ciao
- viole
Sorry for coming to this thread late, and I apologize if I repeat someone else's idea:
I think a better question than the OP/thread title is "why do we allow ourselves and others to suffer, when we are also allowed to make choices to alleviate and/or end suffering?"
I think a better question than the OP/thread title is "why do we allow ourselves and others to suffer, when we are also allowed to make choices to alleviate and/or end suffering?"
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Considering this, what would you say about someone who could easily alleviate someone else's suffering, but chooses not to and allows them to continue to suffer?
That they are free to choose that path, but should probably try to help. Probably can't help everyone, but still...Our society does not reward people much for preventing/solving suffering...
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
In which case I'll get back to my original question. What is wrong with suffering?