May I Get A Critique?

[Oremoose]

So i was watching Chris Stefanick's newest video Why does God let us suffer?

 

And the top comment was this....
 

 

Ok, if suffering is caused by other people's selfishness, that does not get God out of responsibility. And that's also the case for the opposite. And if he created the world and allows that to happen, he's in charge of that and can be held accoutable.
And with the claim of a plan of a 'greater good' from suffering, you made an argument for any dictator. Because they can now also continue their evil acts and just use the excuse of a 'greater good'. That's an ill-minded world view.
And it's not the death of his son. It's - at best - he himself in human form, which he sacrificed for himself to himself for a rule, he made up. That's the most messed up view, that someone can come across with.
If I create something, I am responsible for it. And I can not get myself out by this loophole of amother human sacrifice. That's a correct moral view. The Bible is absurd to the highest degree. And I can see, that you understood 'moral relativism' now. You said: "Pain can have a purpose". But that can not be explained with a God - just without.

 

 

I replied,

I see where you are coming from. However you are mistaken that God should be accountable for the actions of humans. God gave humans free will. So by virtue of that Free Will Humans are 100% responsible and accountable for what they do and all that follows. Including the punishment that comes after we have died.

The point where Jesus comes into play. And to keep it simple the Logic is thus:
God made humans, Humans infinitely offended God. God Being Merciful and Just took all the Punishment humans deserved and placed it on His Son Jesus, thus pardoned any human who accepts it.

So to conclude. God created humans. God gave it Absolute freedom to do what ever they pleased with the catch that they are fully responsible for everything that they do. Humans Abuse that freedom. Instead of Destroying all humans, Jesus stepped in and took the fall for all of humanity. That Choice would ultimately kill him. It did but Jesus being God (who cannot die) rose from the dead. So pain can have a purpose with God, Because since we are free to do what ever we want we can put purpose to our suffering by uniting it to the suffering of Jesus.

 

 

 

How did I do? is there anything wrong in my approach or phrasing? Did I say anything wrong?

 

I am not much for internet debate but I felt inspired to respond to this comment.

[PhuturePriest]

Sounds good to me. The only thing I would critique is the typo at the beginning of your third paragraph, where you didn't use a colon when you should have.

[Nihil Obstat]

Personally I would not use the phrase absolute freedom. I see what you mean, but imo the terminology is imprecise, because absolute to me implies unconditional.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[Ice_nine]

I don't know, to me that fact that God is willing to suffer with us, and suffer because of us is much more mysterious and humbling than reducing the cross to repaying a debt and "taking the punishment we deserve" (which is inaccurate because if you believe humans deserve hell as a punishment, Jesus did not experience hell, so that logic doesn't compute and it's quite protestant I think).

 

Also, I think Christ's suffering showed us, in a way we humans can comprehend, how God suffers with us, for us, and because of us and that God is not some unfeeling (again God may not "feel" as his creation feels, except of course in the humanity of Christ) deity who is unmoved or unaffected by our pain and our joys, our misdeeds and our triumphs. So that doesn't give a purpose per se to suffering but if God feels our pain, then it's a little easier to swallow than a God who sits upstairs moving us around in some sort of weird cosmic game without feeling anything.

 

Idk, I'm not a fan of these debates because the mystery of the Cross and of suffering is too deep to be wrapped up in a neat paragraph, so I've likely been entirely unhelpful. My apologies.

[Kateri89]

Idk, I'm not a fan of these debates because the mystery of the Cross and of suffering is too deep to be wrapped up in a neat paragraph, so I've likely been entirely unhelpful. My apologies.

 

I feel exactly the same way, not just about this but about the many mysteries of God.

[Oremoose]

I don't know, to me that fact that God is willing to suffer with us, and suffer because of us is much more mysterious and humbling than reducing the cross to repaying a debt and "taking the punishment we deserve" (which is inaccurate because if you believe humans deserve hell as a punishment, Jesus did not experience hell, so that logic doesn't compute and it's quite protestant I think).

 

Also, I think Christ's suffering showed us, in a way we humans can comprehend, how God suffers with us, for us, and because of us and that God is not some unfeeling (again God may not "feel" as his creation feels, except of course in the humanity of Christ) deity who is unmoved or unaffected by our pain and our joys, our misdeeds and our triumphs. So that doesn't give a purpose per se to suffering but if God feels our pain, then it's a little easier to swallow than a God who sits upstairs moving us around in some sort of weird cosmic game without feeling anything.

 

Idk, I'm not a fan of these debates because the mystery of the Cross and of suffering is too deep to be wrapped up in a neat paragraph, so I've likely been entirely unhelpful. My apologies.

 

No, no thank you very much. I like all your points. I agree that you can not dive deep enough into any Church teaching really in one paragraph, I was merely trying to give an overview. I asked so that i may know my faith better and you have pointed out that Jesus did not Experienced hell and I thought he did after death Before rising. I may be confused that the hole bosom of Abraham and hell were the same.And also i was unclear  that Jesus' suffer was With, for and Because of humanity. And that is very important not to forget.

 

Personally I would not use the phrase absolute freedom. I see what you mean, but imo the terminology is imprecise, because absolute to me implies unconditional.

 

Isn't our will unconditional? we can really do anything that nature has limited us to. Even then we cannot fly but through the will of invention we have Airplanes.

What word would you use?

[Anomaly]

Quote
I see where you are coming from. However you are mistaken that God should be accountable for the actions of humans. God gave humans free will. So by virtue of that Free Will Humans are 100% responsible and accountable for what they do and all that follows. Including the punishment that comes after we have died.

The point where Jesus comes into play. And to keep it simple the Logic is thus:
God made humans, Humans infinitely offended God. God Being Merciful and Just took all the Punishment humans deserved and placed it on His Son Jesus, thus pardoned any human who accepts it.

So to conclude. God created humans. God gave it Absolute freedom to do what ever they pleased with the catch that they are fully responsible for everything that they do. Humans Abuse that freedom. Instead of Destroying all humans, Jesus stepped in and took the fall for all of humanity. That Choice would ultimately kill him. It did but Jesus being God (who cannot die) rose from the dead. So pain can have a purpose with God, Because since we are free to do what ever we want we can put purpose to our suffering by uniting it to the suffering of Jesus.





You created a different cause of the suffering in this world.

Where is justice for the suffering of a child with cancer or born missing limbs? Is the suffering of the child punishment for Adam's eating an apple or Hitler's murders? There is little logic in saying God has taken humanity's punishment on one hand then saying we are condemned at birth unless we seek forgiveness while also saying we condemn ourselves again in any number of mortal sins or failing to overcome the human reality of imperfect traits and being condemned for not following the right religion or adhering to the proper rubrics.

All religions talk out of both sides of their mouths on any given day and claim to be the One. Do humans condemn each other as Adam condemned humanity? Are humans born condemned or saved? Do our sins condemn only ourselves or also our children? Is being humanly good enough or not? Are all humans infinitely offensive just on the fact of existing? God is creating us condemned for offensives by others?
It seems the average human isn't as easily offended, as harsh in punishment, and quicker to forgive than this "perfectly loving God". Human justice has the wacky idea of being innocent until proven guilty. I'm not too impressed with an omniscient and omnipotent and immortal God's "sacrifice" when He KNEW He would survive and be right as rain and a God in a few days. What did parents do to deserve seeing their adult child swept out to sea in a tsunami ? What did the person do to deserve becoming a paraplegic in a tornado and living in pain for the next fifty years without the sure Knowledge of being a God for infinity? God didn't endure any more suffering for those few days than many hundreds of thousands of millions humans have suffered as well, without coming out on the other side as a worshipped and feared immortal God.

It is all just a bogeyman Santa Claus myth to try and keep most of us from hurting and maiming each other while we learn to get along. It's not a lie if you believe it, and commitment doesn't make it truth. Even as a myth, it's logical that God may not be liable for our acts, but as creator, he's got to be responsible for all the suffering we didn't do to ourselves.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

 

Isn't our will unconditional? we can really do anything that nature has limited us to. Even then we cannot fly but through the will of invention we have Airplanes.

What word would you use?

It is conditional in a prescriptive sense. We can do many things, but there are many things we ought or ought not to do. That is why I do not want to say our freedom is absolute. Yes, in a descriptive sense we can do things that are evil, but in a moral sense we do not have the right to do evil. Error has no rights, and in a manner of speaking we should consider that a condition on our human freedom.

I do not think you are wrong, I just think some people could be confused by the way you describe it.

 

If I were to describe it, I would specify that freedom in its truest sense is the freedom to do God's will, and that doing evil is a perversion of freedom that is nonetheless permitted us in God's wisdom.

[Basilisa Marie]

I'm not a huge fan of satisfaction theology (cross = debt to be repaid) because of a lot of those reasons - it doesn't make sense to me why God would be bound by a rule that God made up. I don't like the idea of God "having" to do anything, and it makes sin and redemption much more like a transaction (like making a purchase) than a real relationship. I mean, it all certainly works if you're being logical and philosophical, but it falls apart when you start thinking about what suffering is like in the world and the practical realities of human experience.  Plus it doesn't offer any good answers to why seemingly meaningless evils permeate the world (Hitler, natural disasters, etc). I don't think satisfaction theology is wrong, per se, but I think that it's an insufficient or incomplete answer to the problem of evil. 

 

So instead I prefer to think of it more in terms of relationships and love.  God is infinitely good, so any choice against God would be an infinite evil. That's just how that works. Humans have free will, so by choosing against God we bring evil and suffering into the world. And when we choose against God, we choose against our relationship with God. God, being both love itself and a loving being, accompanies us as we suffer. Though accompanying us God is perpetually inviting us into a deeper relationship with Him.  God's perfect act of accompaniment is the Paschal Mystery: the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ. This act also is the ultimate invitation into a relationship with God. So accepting Christ as our Lord (obedience, choosing for God) and Savior (repentance, repairing our relationship with God) is the one true, sure, etc way of getting back on track toward our ultimate destiny and purpose as human beings: union with God. 

Judgement and punishment are simply the natural, automatic consequences of choosing against God, because Hell is what happens to us when we die while our relationship with God is completely broken. Christ is necessary. Sure, it's possible for you to never formally be a Christian and still get to Heaven. But after choosing against God (and thus for the infinite evil), there's nothing we can do as finite being that could possibly completely (or even remotely) repair our relationship with God. Our intentions are never perfect, our virtues are never complete, all the good we could ever possibly hope to do looks half-arsed in comparison to an infinite good in God. So God reaches out to us over the gap of infinity to invite us back into relationship with Him, because God is patient, kind, generous, persevering, etc with our feebleness. Christ is God reaching over the gap. So by becoming human, God relates to us on our limited, human terms. That's why original sin necessitated the incarnation, because it's only through God becoming human could humans accept God's invitation back into relationship and actually have that relationship be repaired. Now, people may not know Christ through no fault of their own, so God works with them (again: patient, kind, loving, etc). But it's only by the fact that Christ "happened" that anyone can be "saved" at all. (sorry, long tangent here). 

Anyway.  Yeah. 

[mortify ii]

In a world of potency and change, differences among creatures are unavoidable. The differences between us often are a cause for a great deal of suffering, but often this suffering is created by ourselves. There is the suffering of pain from bodily injury, and then there is the pain of mind. The first we have no control over, but we do have power over how we view our situation. As Marcus Aurelius said, "You have power over your mind, not outside events, realize this and you will find strength." This is why traditional worldviews are founded on conforming ourselves to a higher power, whether that be Dharma, Universal Nature, or Divine providence, they all essentially point to the same concept. "He who is contented is rich," we may also add he who is contended is at peace. God of course is responsible for this world, and maybe even positively willed the suffering you are experiencing, but never a moral evil if that was the root of your injury. God may will to deprive you of goods so that you may detach yourself and grow closer to Him but he does not will the sin of the thief. God respects the freewill of man. God by nature is righteous. By nature He sets things right, and this is where the cosmic sense of justice, sin, and redemption comes from. The sin of Adam had to be set right (emphasis on "had"). To the worldly this is all absurdity, but the world is lost and most just go with the flow of the majority. The elect will always be a minority.

[Seven77]

 about the nature of the redemption…  it almost sounds like you're saying that God punished Jesus in our place… that's not even a Catholic understanding of satisfaction theory… that's penal satisfaction theory that Calvinists believe, not a valid atonement theory for Catholics.

 

 a few months ago I came across this website that I found to be very helpful…  it reinforces what Basilisa is saying, emphasizing the love of God:

 

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/

[Oremoose]

 

 about the nature of the redemption…  it almost sounds like you're saying that God punished Jesus in our place… that's not even a Catholic understanding of satisfaction theory… that's penal satisfaction theory that Calvinists believe, not a valid atonement theory for Catholics.

 

 a few months ago I came across this website that I found to be very helpful…  it reinforces what Basilisa is saying, emphasizing the love of God:

 

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/

 

 

thank you. This is why I asked I wanted to make sure I would not be considered Phishy out there in the interwebz.  

[missionseeker]

Just to point out one poster( I am on a phone) said " Jesus did not experience Hell" yes, actually He did. It's even in the Apostles Creed "He descended into Hell"

[Ice_nine]

Just to point out one poster( I am on a phone) said " Jesus did not experience Hell" yes, actually He did. It's even in the Apostles Creed "He descended into Hell"

 

hell as in "the place of the dead" yes. Hell as we commonly understand it as a place of eternal damnation and separation from God? No, obviously not. This is why atonement theory falls on its face. If that is the just punishment for sins then clearly Jesus (being God and all) cannot be damned nor separated from God did not undertake this punishment. The etymology of the word "hell" causes some confusion.

 

holla

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I think evil is there to be overcome, defeated, subdued. One of the first commandments of God in Genisis is to ' Subdue the beast.' What else would we do if there was nothing to do, if there wasn't good and evil? A regular approach i use to the whole why do bad things happen, something like this, is simply that God creates all things below him for if God created all things perfect and the same as God than he would defeat his own purpose his own existence, there than would be no need for God. Which to me doesn't make sense. Perhaps i'm thinking to human in that of course you wan't your children to be perfect one day but you don't wan't to spoil them to much or they learn nothing and become irresponsible, not like that where not spoilt enough already with the gift of life hence us being naturally irresponsible to some degree or another. The imperfect man needs a perfect GOD, scripture says" anyone whom says they have never sinned is a lier." and i believe it. It's a growing learning thing, Jesus " i am the vine and you are the branches" everything on the earth goes through elements that try and destroy them, strong winds, hurricanes, droughts, even man for precious gems and fossil fuels( :bananarap: ) etc. I don't know EXACTLY why we suffer but i have an inkling it is to encourage growth in charity, even if we reach full maturity according to our capacity mind,heart and soul there is still trimming that needs to be done that the vine,tree or whatever plant analogy you use may continue to bear the best fruit in abundance, can be absurd to someone without the holy spirit to understand that in anyway suffering can help us grow, then i also i have used the growing pains thing, the whole teenage sore back, calf cramps etc as the body reaches maturity. And i guess there is the whole hunting and gatherer, it's not easy to go hunting without a gun and car, it is hard work, as is wandering around gathering fruit and berries in the midday heat of a summers day, but the result is being able to eat well and enjoy the rest at the end of the day.

 

I really enjoyed what you wrote OP, simply beautiful, a great approach to people that have no clue how to fully understand about church theology.  No critique to give. And sorry if it offends anyone that i had to put by two bits in when the title was 'can i get a critique.' But i feel what i have said is at the least in the spirit of the OP.