Suffering

[amateur]

I was just reading ficino's post on the Family Research Council's Doublespeak, and it reminded me of more doublespeak I heard on the radio the other day.  I was listening to a religious program and the hosts were going on and on about the importance of suffering in this world, and how brilliant god was to allow us to suffer and not just step in and stop it, even when we ask (plead, beg). 

 

They pointed out:

 

How suffering brings us closer to god.

 

How suffering teaches us perseverance.

 

How suffering helps us to grow.

 

They went on and on and were so sincere.  

 

Well, yes, I would agree that a certain degree of suffering does make us stronger, helps us grow, gives us a backbone, and teaches us perseverance.  Suffering to the degree of slowly starving children, children with inoperable cancer, those hundreds of poor Korean students who died in the tragic ferry accident -- no, that degree of suffering is never justifiable, for any of those children or their parents.  Of course, that degree of suffering wasn't addressed, because it simply cannot be justified.

 

But what actually bothered me the most, since these were xians talking, was that they went on about how important suffering is in this world to truly develop us fully as humans; however, xians also say that when they die they will go to heaven where they will NEVER suffer again.  Wait . . . . wait one moment.  

 

So they are saying that when they live on this earth, whether for one second or 100 years, they will experience suffering which is very good for them . . . but when they die they will spend ETERNITY in heaven with NO suffering, which is very good for them.  How does that make sense?  After the first few million years of eternity with no suffering, how would they even remember what suffering was like?  Would they no longer feel close to god, be able to persevere or grow?  What's the point of that eternity?

 

 

[centauri]

I've encountered this type of thinking (rationalizing) in "new age" teachings as well.

Suffering in this warped perspective is really unrecognized perfection.

If suffering is so beneficial or benign, then one must ask why any response is needed when it's encountered.

The Christians and new agers have no real answer for this, other than to circle the wagons and proclaim that regardless of how things appear, everything is actually fine.

Then many of them try to alter that perfection by doing various things to change it.

These folks could rationalize just about anything.

[amateur]

[amateur]

^^That was on my facebook wall.  Yep, it's that big plan that god has.

 

Of course, the above is also ambiguous.  "It will blow you away" might just mean that everything was really seriously fucked up FOR REAL!!!

[TrueFreedom]

This reminds me of a time when I was still a Christian that I mentioned a tragic accident which resulted in the death of a young father and got, "I just have to believe that God has a plan in situations like that."  My response was that it just seemed tragic to me.  Believing that God will make it right is a coping mechanism.  Some people feel that they have to believe that, or they will fall into despair.

[violetbutterfly]

My issue with this is the main reason I started questioning Christianity in the first place. I couldn't get past the "suffering is good" part. I agree to a point that it builds character, but sometimes enough is enough. And as you pointed out, there is a lot of suffering that can never, ever be justified. I would feel my blood pressure rise when I'd hear that "suffering is God's will, and it brings us closer to Jesus." My bullshit meter would go haywire.

 

I also didn't understand the ratio system. If you were born into poverty, the victim of rape, homelessness, torture, etc...do you have an easier time getting into heaven? If you are born into wealth and safety and have nannies and eat off silver spoons but still end up a kind person who donates time and money to charities but also doesn't have a care in the world, do you have a harder time getting into heaven? Is it based on simply if you accept Jesus? If so, why is the suffering of one person necessary but the suffering of the other apparently is not? Especially since the first person's suffering is guaranteed to make his faith more difficult to maintain. And then of course there are those people who are born into poverty and suffering who also have no idea about Jesus, but when they are told, they must accept. MAKES NO SENSE.

 

I never even thought about the rest of it. I was too busy worrying that I was never going to get to heaven, I never thought about it much past arriving there.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

During the last months leading up to my deconversion I was a complete emotional and spiritual wreck.  I was trying everything I could to hold my collapsing faith together and convince god that I really did want to break through with him and have his plan finally come true in my life.  My mother told me once, during this time, "Look at what 'so and so' has been through and he still believes". 

 

I thought, "Doesn't that just prove that life sucks across the board for everybody?"

[xtify]

I've encountered this type of thinking (rationalizing) in "new age" teachings as well.

Suffering in this warped perspective is really unrecognized perfection.

If suffering is so beneficial or benign, then one must ask why any response is needed when its encountered.

The Christians and new agers have no real answer for this, other than to circle the wagons and proclaim that regardless of how things appear, everything is actually fine.

Then many of them try to alter that perfection by doing various things to change it.

These folks could rationalize just about anything.

 

Centauri, I have encountered the same warped teachings in the so-called new age religion.  The worst of which, in my opinion, is the one where people choose to be born in certain circumstances as a chance to perfect their souls.  For example, a starving, African child chose to be born under those conditions because they really wanted to have a greater position in the afterlife.  I found this to be incredibly offensive.  Not only does it negate any obligation for western society to help these people, but it places blame on these people for "choosing" the conditions they were born into.

 

The existence of needless suffering is something that no religion can properly address.  Since we are continually bombarded with international news of war and tragedy, people need easy answers are to why things are the way they are so they can minimize the effects of these occurences on their lives.  That's what the new age gurus have to offer... easy answers.  Whatever it takes to keep wealthy suburban housewives shopping for $1200 handbags and feeling good about themselves.

 

The secret about The Secret is that it's all about selling books... aka the money.

[xtify]

 

[RipVanWinkle]

 "Believing that God will make it right is a coping mechanism.  Some people feel that they have to believe that, or they will fall into despair."  TrueFreedom

 

 

Exactly. They think the way to truth is what makes you feel better about the world. Like, "If there were no hell look what Hitler would get away with."  Oh? But god would allow starving people in Africa, after living a miserable life, to go to hell for eternity.  bill

[Roz]

I'm going to take god to task further in regards to the African continent.

 

Not only does this god not care about the already starving, he sent missionaries of his biggest denomination to specifically tell people NOT to use condoms because that's a sin.

The result is that more STDs are spread around, more children are born, more children born will be starving, and those starving children will have viral STDs to boot.

 

Fuck you, jesus.

[centauri]

 

I've encountered this type of thinking (rationalizing) in "new age" teachings as well.

Suffering in this warped perspective is really unrecognized perfection.

If suffering is so beneficial or benign, then one must ask why any response is needed when its encountered.

The Christians and new agers have no real answer for this, other than to circle the wagons and proclaim that regardless of how things appear, everything is actually fine.

Then many of them try to alter that perfection by doing various things to change it.

These folks could rationalize just about anything.

 

Centauri, I have encountered the same warped teachings in the so-called new age religion.  The worst of which, in my opinion, is the one where people choose to be born in certain circumstances as a chance to perfect their souls.  For example, a starving, African child chose to be born under those conditions because they really wanted to have a greater position in the afterlife.  I found this to be incredibly offensive.  Not only does it negate any obligation for western society to help these people, but it places blame on these people for "choosing" the conditions they were born into.

 

The existence of needless suffering is something that no religion can properly address.  Since we are continually bombarded with international news of war and tragedy, people need easy answers are to why things are the way they are so they can minimize the effects of these occurences on their lives.  That's what the new age gurus have to offer... easy answers.  Whatever it takes to keep wealthy suburban housewives shopping for $1200 handbags and feeling good about themselves.

 

The secret about The Secret is that it's all about selling books... aka the money.

 

New age was my next stop after leaving Christianity and it lasted about two years before I became disgusted with it.

The "you create your own reality" gurus were really coming out of the woodwork back then (circa 2000-2001).

The Secret is a good example of the pap that's sold as "higher knowledge".

Then there are the "Star Children", the little messiahs that were supposed to usher in a new age shift for the world.

None of the gurus were right and there was no cosmic shift that changed much of anything.

I hardly even follow new age now, it's all just the same tired tripe to me, which reminded me of Christianity in many ways.

It was a pile of grand predictions and impressive word salad, followed by complete failures.

[violetbutterfly]

I'm going to take god to task further in regards to the African continent.

 

Not only does this god not care about the already starving, he sent missionaries of his biggest denomination to specifically tell people NOT to use condoms because that's a sin.

The result is that more STDs are spread around, more children are born, more children born will be starving, and those starving children will have viral STDs to boot.

 

Fuck you, jesus.

Come on. This really happened!?

[Roz]

My bad, it wasn't only missionaries.  It was the big papa of god's largest church himself visiting.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/03/17/cameroon.pope/index.html?iref=24hours

[violetbutterfly]

He has, however, assembled a panel of scientists and theologians to consider the narrow question of whether to allow condoms for married couples, one of whom has HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

 

Sooo...that means they are going to decide whether or not you are allowed to use condoms if you're married and one of you has HIV... and still be considered a Catholic? And be spared from the fires of hell? What exactly are they deciding to "allow?" If it's whether or not condom use is a sin, isn't that playing God?

[Overcame Faith]

Suffering.is not good. It has no benefits. When Christians speak of the "benefits" of suffering, they do so as a way to try to reconcile their "benevolent" god with the realities of the world in which suffering is a harsh reality. What they fight to admit is the simple fact that our world which is full of those who have truly suffered is the best (and worst) evidence that their god does not exist.

[RipVanWinkle]

OF: I agree with you that suffering is no good. But if suffering must be in the world then some suffering by everyone would serve a

purpose. It would (hopefully) cause sufferers to have empathy for other sufferers. Mark Twain said that the Lord's Prayer was wrong where it said "lead us not into temptation ...." He believed that a person never tempted would not have compassion for someone who has fallen to temptation. 

 

Similarly, one who has not suffered would not have an understanding of people or animals who do suffer. But it would be better if there were no suffering at all.  bill

[Bhim]

Strangely, when I was a Christian I was fully pleased with the "Biblical" answer regarding suffering.  At least the Calvinist's version of it.  I was taught that those who are suffering are no worse than the rest of us, but that they suffer as signs of God's eternal wrath that befalls each and every one of us if we do not repent and believe in Jesus.  If you believe that everyone, Christian and otherwise, exists for the pleasure of God, then this can sort of make sense.

 

Obviously I don't believe in Jesus anymore, and therefore cannot subscribe to this belief either.

[violetbutterfly]

I was taught that those who are suffering are no worse than the rest of us, but that they suffer as signs of God's eternal wrath that befalls each and every one of us if we do not repent and believe in Jesus.

But this doesn't explain why believers also suffer.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Strangely, when I was a Christian I was fully pleased with the "Biblical" answer regarding suffering.  At least the Calvinist's version of it.  I was taught that those who are suffering are no worse than the rest of us, but that they suffer as signs of God's eternal wrath that befalls each and every one of us if we do not repent and believe in Jesus.  If you believe that everyone, Christian and otherwise, exists for the pleasure of God, then this can sort of make sense.

 

Obviously I don't believe in Jesus anymore, and therefore cannot subscribe to this belief either.

I was taught the same thing.  Xians are a lot less concerned about the suffering of non-believers.  When believers suffered, it was a test or they were not really repentant or praying hard enough.

[Overcame Faith]

OF: I agree with you that suffering is no good. But if suffering must be in the world then some suffering by everyone would serve a

purpose. It would (hopefully) cause sufferers to have empathy for other sufferers. Mark Twain said that the Lord's Prayer was wrong where it said "lead us not into temptation ...." He believed that a person never tempted would not have compassion for someone who has fallen to temptation. 

 

Similarly, one who has not suffered would not have an understanding of people or animals who do suffer. But it would be better if there were no suffering at all.  bill

I agree with what you say, Bill. Suffering only has "benefits" to some degree in a world where suffering in inevitable for the reasons you have stated. However, I maintain that for a god who supposedly could end all suffering, to keep a suffering world is either a cruel god or a nonexistent one. I vote that the god of the Bible is non-existent and, therefore, suffering is inevitable until WE figure out how to end it, which I hope that one day we do!!

[Bhim]

 

I was taught that those who are suffering are no worse than the rest of us, but that they suffer as signs of God's eternal wrath that befalls each and every one of us if we do not repent and believe in Jesus.

But this doesn't explain why believers also suffer.

Oh but it does! The point expressed by the Calvinist is that believers and nonbelievers both suffer in this world, as a testament to God's wrath on non-Christians. When a Christian suffers, he is giving a living witness to the world's need of salvation through Jesus. Were I still a Christian, I would likely point to the example of Jeremiah, who suffered greatly as a visual depiction of God's impending wrath upon Israel. The suffering of believers can indeed be made to have great meaning.

 

I say this not to glorify Christianity, but so that we will all know our enemy as well as possible. And make no mistake, evangelical Christianity and it's apologists are most definitely enemies.

[xtify]

 

 

I've encountered this type of thinking (rationalizing) in "new age" teachings as well.

Suffering in this warped perspective is really unrecognized perfection.

If suffering is so beneficial or benign, then one must ask why any response is needed when its encountered.

The Christians and new agers have no real answer for this, other than to circle the wagons and proclaim that regardless of how things appear, everything is actually fine.

Then many of them try to alter that perfection by doing various things to change it.

These folks could rationalize just about anything.

 

Centauri, I have encountered the same warped teachings in the so-called new age religion.  The worst of which, in my opinion, is the one where people choose to be born in certain circumstances as a chance to perfect their souls.  For example, a starving, African child chose to be born under those conditions because they really wanted to have a greater position in the afterlife.  I found this to be incredibly offensive.  Not only does it negate any obligation for western society to help these people, but it places blame on these people for "choosing" the conditions they were born into.

 

The existence of needless suffering is something that no religion can properly address.  Since we are continually bombarded with international news of war and tragedy, people need easy answers are to why things are the way they are so they can minimize the effects of these occurences on their lives.  That's what the new age gurus have to offer... easy answers.  Whatever it takes to keep wealthy suburban housewives shopping for $1200 handbags and feeling good about themselves.

 

The secret about The Secret is that it's all about selling books... aka the money.

 

New age was my next stop after leaving Christianity and it lasted about two years before I became disgusted with it.

The "you create your own reality" gurus were really coming out of the woodwork back then (circa 2000-2001).

The Secret is a good example of the pap that's sold as "higher knowledge".

Then there are the "Star Children", the little messiahs that were supposed to usher in a new age shift for the world.

None of the gurus were right and there was no cosmic shift that changed much of anything.

I hardly even follow new age now, it's all just the same tired tripe to me, which reminded me of Christianity in many ways.

It was a pile of grand predictions and impressive word salad, followed by complete failures.

 

 

Me too.  Unfortunately I went back to christianity afterward.  But, I know exactly what you are talking about with the children born after 2000, and the supposed upcoming consciousness shift or whatever (I've thankfully forgotten).  I was stuck in the new age zone for a decade in between a christian upbringing and reconverting.  I thought guys like Deepak Chopra were brilliant.  I can't believe how lame I was to fall for it all.  When I listen to his crap now, I am embarrassed for him.  Your phrase, "word salad" is so descriptive of what it's really all about... just remember to sprinkle a little "quantum" on top.

[rach]

I heard the funniest smartass reply about suffering on some other blog. It was that the answer to why all this suffering exists in the world is that it's all part of God's cosmic mousetrap.  Everything from skin grafts to conjoined twins to animal-eating-animal to paralysis to pink eye is part of God's intricate Rube Goldberg machine which, in the final step, bashes the devil's head in and kills him good. 

 

In my Christian days the story of poor Job made perfect sense.  God was showing his glory, obviously.  How else could he show his glory and power to all the generations other than by murdering Job's whole family and burning his skin with boils?  Look, see, even after all this our hero Job is still kissing Yahweh's ass, proving the eternal magnificence of Yahweh. Maybe Job was just ass kissing to try to get god to leave him the f^ck alone. Our minister always explained that Job's story was justified because it would inspire all the future sufferers to persevere and give glory to god in their own "trials."  I finally figured out what bullshit that all is....God is torturing Job so that God can successfully torture other people in the future.   They won't commit suicide, because old Job didn't, and he's the official role model.  They'll kiss his ass, because Job did.  I think, bullshit God.  If you weren't planning on torturing more people in the future you would not have needed to torture Job.  The suffering world makes a lot more sense when we sit old Yahweh down on the psychiatrist's couch and realize how easily we can diagnose him with Sadistic Personality Disorder.  He likes to humiliate, he likes to terrorize, he likes to restrict freedom, he is obsessed with dominance. 

 

Another eerie thing is that the bible is a pro-human and animal sacrifice book.  Maybe all of the world's sufferers are god's "sacrificial victims."  He did it to his own son, for f&cks sake.  There is a reason Jewish people prefer the term "Shoah" rather than "Holocaust".  The roots of the word Holocaust break into "burnt whole" as in a burnt sacrificial offering.   

[owen652]

Like... in the manner of Dirty Harry