God and suffering?

[shortnun]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 1 2006, 11:36 PM']I'll look up a reference to the theologian Masao Abe.... he's a Buddhist scholar who's brought his tradition into conversation with Western religions. He speaks deeply and insightfully about a suffering God.
[right][snapback]842924[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Just remember, no one ever died as a result of an ecumenical Buddhist-Christian dialogue. : : I'm just sorry I can't find a link to this online.... maybe someone else can...

Masao Abe, "Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata," in [i]Divine Emptiness and Historical Fullness: A Buddhist Jewish Christian Conversation with Masao Abe[/i], ed. Christopher Ives (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995).

[jmjtina]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jan 2 2006, 09:09 AM'][quote name='JeffCR07']So, while we can say that "God causes suffering" in some sense, we do so improperly, since we are not speaking with reference to the primary meaning of the phrase, but rather, only with reference to secondary agency.[/quote]

I disagree. Since God was the first and only cause, everything that happened after happened because of God. It's like if I were to design and build a zoo (with no human workers) in which all the animals later ended up suffering greatly. That would be a bad zoo and I would get the blame for screwing up the design. People wouldn't be saying "well, she wasn't expected to end their suffering, so it's not her fault they are still suffering", even if it was true. The point is that they are suffering in the first place.

Also, saying that God is not the [i]direct[/i] cause would be silly. Someone who lights up the fuse of a bomb with full knowledge that it will set up the bomb, is the cause of the following explosion and not just the burning fuse.
[right][snapback]843293[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

with that logic, we never really take responsibility for our own actions. The fact that you had no human workers, IS your fault and yours alone because you were in charge of building it. It was through your knowledge or lack of, that choose no human workers, thus leading them to suffer greatly. The fact that you had the CHOICE and the responsibilty of hiring human workers or not is entirely your fault and thus would cause you to be fired from your job and probably sued.

We must also remember free will, and original sin all play a part in suffering and remember that God is good and love. He cannot contradict himself.

The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis and Making Sense out of suffering by Peter Kreeft are good reads.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jan 2 2006, 10:09 AM'][quote name='JeffCR07']So, while we can say that "God causes suffering" in some sense, we do so improperly, since we are not speaking with reference to the primary meaning of the phrase, but rather, only with reference to secondary agency.[/quote]

I disagree. Since God was the first and only cause, everything that happened after happened because of God. It's like if I were to design and build a zoo (with no human workers) in which all the animals later ended up suffering greatly. That would be a bad zoo and I would get the blame for screwing up the design. People wouldn't be saying "well, she wasn't expected to end their suffering, so it's not her fault they are still suffering", even if it was true. The point is that they are suffering in the first place.

Also, saying that God is not the [i]direct[/i] cause would be silly. Someone who lights up the fuse of a bomb with full knowledge that it will set up the bomb, is the cause of the following explosion and not just the burning fuse.
[right][snapback]843293[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The objection above clearly does not take into account free will. Free will is a necessary prerequisite of loving God. Both humans and angels were created to enter into a communion of love with God, therefore both needed free will. Free will includes the radical possibility of sin. Suffering is the result of sin.

Therefore, if God had created a world in which suffering was impossible, it would necessarily be a world in which sin was impossible. If it was a world in which sin was impossible, it would necessarily be a wold in which love was impossible.

Thus, the possibility of suffering is tied at least in some way to the possibility of love.

This is [i]not[/i] like lighting a fuse, because, unlike the fuse, free will has many possible outcomes, and need not of necessity lead to sin and suffering.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='jmjtina']with that logic, we never really take responsibility for our own actions.[/quote]

Sure we do. And that's what I was arguing for. Are you saying that the animals caused their own suffering?

I'm just saying that some of the suffering is because of God and some of it because of people. It seems to me God doesn't take responsibility for the suffering he's causing.


[quote name='jmjtina']The fact that you had no human workers, IS your fault and yours alone because you were in charge of building it. It was through your knowledge or lack of, that choose no human workers, thus leading them to suffer greatly.[/quote]

Well, the suffering wasn't caused directly by lack of humans in there. The suffering was caused by bad design. But if you want to say that's the same thing, then fine.

But anyway, I actually agree with you here. I screwed up the design. And so did God.

[quote name='JeffCR07']The objection above clearly does not take into account free will.[/quote]

It did. Only the free will of me (=God) caused the suffering.

[quote name='JeffCR07']Suffering is the result of sin.[/quote]

Except in cases in which no sin occurred, but suffering did.

[quote name='JeffCR07']Therefore, if God had created a world in which suffering was impossible, it would necessarily be a world in which sin was impossible.[/quote]

God could have created a world in which suffering was caused only by sin. This is not the world in which we live. We live in a world in which suffering is often (but not always) caused randomly by things without intention and free-will.