Thoughts On Suffering

[Maggyie]

2 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

I think you're stretching here. Where unbaptized infants go has not been officially stated by the Church. Wherever they go, we can be assured of God's mercy. Lastly just because you cannot see the reason and good in this death does not mean there is none.  If God revealed to you that this child would have lost their eternal soul if they had not died when they did, what would you say? Is the soul not more important than the body and in the end of the day is it not our salvation which is God's primary concern?  This life is not our home, Maggyie. 

So God might have had to kill the baby to save its soul? Doesn't that deny the soul its freedom? Instead of waiting for the child to be able to make a free will choice, kill it now before it can choose wrongly? If so why would God give other souls freedom? Isn't it contrary to dignity to "force" it? And contrary to how we know God works in the world?

lastly even if that was his goal, he could just have easily had the child pass away peacefully in their sleep, to be discovered by the parents upon waking. I promise there's no spiritual lesson you can learn from having your child devoured, that you CAN'T learn by finding them sleeping forever in their crib. The trauma for a parent is the same. It's just less agony for the helpless child, who can't even begin to turn their mind to God as they die in terror. 

3 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Careful now.  You're uncovering the beginning of many atheists.   

The problem of evil is not sufficient to be an atheist. Not an orthodox Christian, perhaps. But atheism rejects all divinity, not just specific gods or conceptions of gods. 

[Credo in Deum]

6 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

 

lastly even if that was his goal, he could just have easily had the child pass away peacefully in their sleep, to be discovered by the parents upon waking. I promise there's no spiritual lesson you can learn from having your child devoured, that you CAN'T learn by finding them sleeping forever in their crib. The trauma for a parent is the same. It's just less agony for the helpless child, who can't even begin to turn their mind to God as they die in terror. 

He could have done same thing with Christ but He didn't.  But if you think there is no lesson to be learned then I would recommend meditating on Our Blessed Mother and ask Her for guidance. 

[Maggyie]

2 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

He could have done same thing with Christ but He didn't.  But if you think there is no lesson to be learned then I would recommend meditating on Our Blessed Mother and ask Her for guidance. 

Christ was able to make the sacrifice. He chose to accept death and suffering, to willingly make the offering. A two year old can't make any offering. 

[Credo in Deum]

6 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

Christ was able to make the sacrifice. He chose to accept death and suffering, to willingly make the offering. A two year old can't make any offering. 

You make it sound like it was easier for Christ to accept death than for a baby who knows nothing and is therefore not made anxious by the knowledge of death.  Who's death do you believe carries the heavier cross? The person who knows or the person who is ignorant? Why are you stuck on this idea  regarding the two year old and being conscious of making making an offering? Obviously if the baby can't make a conscious offering then this task is willed to those who love the baby; the parents.  God has dominion over you child. He gave you your child and he can take your child. You do not own them. Parents are stewards of God. 

Edited June 28, 2016 by Credo in Deum

[Maggyie]

12 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

You make it sound like it was easier for Christ to accept death than for a baby who knows nothing and is therefore not made anxious by the knowledge of death.  Who's death do you believe carries the heavier cross? The person who knows or the person who is ignorant? Why are you stuck on this idea  regarding the two year old and being conscious of making making an offering? Obviously if the baby can't make a conscious offering then this task is willed to those who love the baby; the parents.  God has dominion over you child. He gave you your child and he can take your child. You do not own them. Parents are stewards of God. 

A baby dying a violent death "isn't anxious" because they don't know about death? They don't have the comfort of knowing about the resurrection either. All they know is the feeling of agony and panic as they are bitten and begin to drown. A useless, pointless torture, since they can not offer it up. 

And yes the parents can offer up their own pain, which is immense, but nothing compared to the suffering of their infant, who suffers without knowledge or purpose. 

[Credo in Deum]

Just now, Maggyie said:

A baby dying a violent death "isn't anxious" because they don't know about death? They don't have the comfort of knowing about the resurrection either. All they know is the feeling of agony and panic as they are bitten and begin to drown. A useless, pointless torture, since they can not offer it up. 

It's neither useless or pointless and we know this because God does not work in useless or pointless ways. Mysterious ways? Yes. Useless? No. 

[Maggyie]

Just now, Credo in Deum said:

It's neither useless or pointless and we know this because God does not work in useless or pointless ways. Mysterious ways? Yes. Useless? No. 

Ah ha, it always comes down to this, just accept it is a mystery because "everything happens for a reason." But then we are aghast at the suggestion that one can't reason one's way into Christianity. 

[Anomaly]

50 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

So God might have had to kill the baby to save its soul? Doesn't that deny the soul its freedom? Instead of waiting for the child to be able to make a free will choice, kill it now before it can choose wrongly? If so why would God give other souls freedom? Isn't it contrary to dignity to "force" it? And contrary to how we know God works in the world?

 

The problem of evil is not sufficient to be an atheist. Not an orthodox Christian, perhaps. But atheism rejects all divinity, not just specific gods or conceptions of gods. 

Not sufficient to be an atheist, true.  But certainly a spanner in attempting to theorize an an omniscient And omnipotent And loving God and giving an existential purpose for "evil" that is intiinally infilicted or permitted when it could easily have been prevented by this omniscient and omnipotent being who causes and allows all things to happen. 

Humans can inflict harm on each other.  We rape.  We neglect children or fail to warn about alligators or fail to learn about and prevent hazards. We bring our families to or encourage to bring families to places there may be dangers, whether a roller coaster falls, a plane wing catches on fire, etc.   

Pragmatically, things happen   Sometimes we cause them with evil intent, sometimes we are the victims of random chance.  Pointing fingers and assigning blame and purpose seems only useful to identify evil intent or unreasonable negligence.   Other than that, there is only the opportunity to add to the harm or do something to make things somewhat better.  

Do we blame the rapist or parent for not taking proper care or tell them to offer it up?   Do we tell them God is using their pain as a lesson for them or an example to others or our due for humanity's affront to "God"?

I'd like to think an Atheist's and Religious' reaction should and could be one of empathy and charity to mitigate and alleviate some of each other's suffering in this world.     Empathy isn't only a divine commandment to be obeyed.  It's not an difficult philosophical conclusion after arduous contemplation. It's taught, and known, and learned, and ignored, and practiced.  It's a constructive and very human way to deal with each other's suffering that so often happens regardless of inexplicable purpose, reason, or cause.  

 

 

[Credo in Deum]

2 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

Ah ha, it always comes down to this, just accept it is a mystery because "everything happens for a reason." But then we are aghast at the suggestion that one can't reason one's way into Christianity. 

Mysteries are not contrary to reason, so one can reason into Christanity while accepting Mystery. Secondly we are assured of the goodness of God because of the Resurrection of Christ. We know that God works all things unto good. 

[Seven77]

On 6/27/2016 at 10:03 PM, Credo in Deum said:

The only evils in any of the writing God is said to permit are the physical suffering when we receive them due to the sin of another human being.  These are the only things which are ascribed to his permitting will.  Other things like riches, poverty, disease, illness, famon, hunger, thirst, and death are all said to be from his Ordaining Will as in He did not permit but actively ordained them.  This is why St. Francis says "You send me" and why he does not say "The devil sends me".  They are from God's Hand!

"All evils, except sin, are from God. In all sin there are two things to be considered: guilt and punishment. Now God is the Author of the punishment which attaches to sin, but in no way of the guilt. So that, if we take away the guilt, there is no evil belonging to the punishment which is not caused by God, or is not pleasing to Him. The evils then of punishment, like the evils of nature, originate in the Divine Will. We mean by evils of nature, hunger, thirst, disease, grief, and the like, things which very often have no connection with sin. And so God truly [and,  effectively and positively] wills all the evils of punishment and nature for reasons of perfect justice, but only permits sin or guilt.

So that the latter is called His Permitting Will, the former His Ordaining Will. All, therefore, that we call evil proceeds from the Will of God. Thus Theologians teach; and this foundation must be laid as deeply as possible in the soul, for it is of the utmost importance humbly to receive, and ever to hold, as an infallible truth, that the first cause of all punishments and evils is the Divine Will, always excepting guilt, as I have said already.

------

Evil of nature: sickness, death, hunger, thirst, grief are caused by His Ordaining Will not His Permitting Will.  Only when the physical suffering is from anothers sin is it said to be part of his Permitting Will.

The author of the book is a Jesuit… it would be good to ask a good, solid Jesuit about this quote.

Something about it bothers me… all evils except sin are from God? All evils are consequences of sin! This seems like something self refuting! its absolutely maddening....

 What do I mean that all evils are consequences of sin? According to the church fathers, sin and death are practically synonymous. Neither is ordained by God--- this follows from their writings. Both are permitted.

 Did God ordain the sin of our 1st parents? No-- we establish this from the author. Now having answered that in the negative... did God ordain the introduction of the corruption of death? if you say yes to that then how can you say no to the 1st question?

[Maggyie]

1 hour ago, Seven77 said:

The author of the book is a Jesuit… it would be good to ask a good, solid Jesuit about this quote.

Something about it bothers me… all evils except sin are from God? All evils are consequences of sin! This seems like something self refuting! its absolutely maddening....

 What do I mean that all evils are consequences of sin? According to the church fathers, sin and death are practically synonymous. Neither is ordained by God--- this follows from their writings. Both are permitted.

 Did God ordain the sin of our 1st parents? No-- we establish this from the author. Now having answered that in the negative... did God ordain the introduction of the corruption of death? if you say yes to that then how can you say no to the 1st question?

That's a great point. If God wills everything, did God will the Fall?

[Anomaly]

43 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

That's a great point. If God wills everything, did God will the Fall?

Exactly.   Why not have granted free will and freedom from sin to A and E like was given to Mary and avoided all the horrors humanity is subject to in a fallen world?

[Guest]

Just now, Maggyie said:

That's a great point. If God wills everything, did God will the Fall?

Is it heretical to think he did?

[Maggyie]

21 minutes ago, Josh said:

Is it heretical to think he did?

I'm not sure. I sincerely wonder what the teaching is on that. It's fascinating. 

[Anomaly]

1 minute ago, Maggyie said:

I'm not sure. I sincerely wonder what the teaching is on that. It's fascinating. 

But really, isn't it more important to learn how to deal with suffering? Both your own and others?   I see some (but limited) value in trying to understand why or why not.  As someone pointed out, cause of suffering is a mystery, meaning one just can't or won't know or be sure. I can see where ascribing divine cause, or divine will, or divine knowledge, can certainly send you off into the theological weeds and may be less than helpful in dealing with it if you think you can figure it all out.