Steven Carr

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...5&pagenumber=2

is a debate on suffering between me and Pate. Page 1 can also be read if wished.

Pate on cancer

'There's no implausibility in the idea that more people will grow morally and spiritually in a world where there's certain amount of severe suffering, compared to a world where such suffering is lacking. One example of a thing that brings such suffering to the world is childhood cancer. But if this is true, there's still no implausibility in the idea that reducing and ultimately eliminating childhood cancer is also a good thing. There are great possibilities for moral and spiritual growth in a world where there's such serious suffering, and in which humans can remove considerable part of this suffering, if they choose to focus in this task, and later face new challenges. Not only the suffering itself, but also the process of freely working to eliminate the suffering, can contribute to this cause. '

Pate on the Holocaust

'Because we can't know what the optimal amount of suffering is, we don't have rational grounds to conclude that the actual world, whatever that world is, contains unnecessary suffering.'

Pate on the morality of killing innocent people for reasons nobody can explain 'Absolutely, if the other alternative is the sacrifice of even greater number of people. '

Pate on objective morality ' Besides, this ignores again the different moral roles that exist between God and humans.'

Jamie_L

Haven't read the thread yet, but my "bottom line" about the problem of suffering (especially as it relates to arguements like the ones quoted here):

The concept of using means A to get to ends B does not apply to an omnipotent being. If an omnipotent being wants condition B, then condition B happens through force of will of the being. The only reason for an omnipotent being to use means A to achieve B is because he wants means A for its own sake.

God is omnipotent. If God wants the condition where X number of humans are at level Y of spiritual growth, he does not need suffering to do it. He can just will it to happen. The only reason for suffering to be used is if God wants suffering in addition to the end state of spirituality.

The idea that experiencing the "growth" process itself if important is also no relevant when talking about an omnipotent diety. Whatever wisdom we gain by experiencing the growth could be instantaneously created in us by an omnipotent God. The exact end state of spiritual growth could be duplicated through will alone by an omnipotent being.

If God exists, and God is omnipotent, one must assume God wants suffering for its own sake.

Jamie

keyser_soze

In other words, "god works in mysterious ways".:banghead: ..How unique! I guess we just don't get it.

betzerdg

Sorry if THis is trite...having not read the thread on suffering.

Jumping off a cliff results in hitting bottom.

Sometimes jumping itself is quite pleasant.

So, should a loving G-d negate the laws of gravity to accommodate the cliff jumpers.


We (as a mankind thing) chose to jump from the perfect....and as we hit bottom we shake our fists at G-d. "HOw dare you let us hit bottom"
We forget He told us not to jump.

What is the message of scripture:

You reap what you sow....
The wages of sin is death
If you eat of the fruit you will surely die
what you plant...that is what you harvest.

Suffering reminds us that there are laws to follow.
Suffering reminds us that we have broken those laws.
Suffering reminds us that we are imperfect in an imperfect world and along with all of creation we long for the restoration of that which is perfect.

WE OURSELVES created suffering.....but it is now G-d who uses it to bring us back to our senses.

shalom,

BEtzer

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

betzerdg,



You nailed it.



Consider this thread finished.





Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Dr. Retard

Riiiight, because children choose to be born with Tay-Sachs Disease.

SRB

None of this makes very much sense to me. Perhaps you could clarify by dealing with a concrete example. Why is it that God does not act to prevent the suffering caused by children being terminally ill from cancer?

Maybe you think these are the reasons?:

The suffering of those children reminds us that there are laws to follow.
The suffering of those children reminds us that we have broken those laws.
The suffering of those children reminds us that we are imperfect.

If you think they are the reasons then you are mistaken. It is not the case that people seeing children suffer and die from cancer does anything much to "remind" anyone that there are laws to follow, for example. Perhaps you can tell us how this “reminding” is supposed to work. So far as I can see, it almost never happens. Parents generally do not come away from their dying child's bedside with a recollection of a forgotten fact that they are supposed to stick to some (unspecified) set of laws!

In any case, there are simpler and far less harmful ways to get people to believe things (or to “remind” them of things). Letting children suffer and die from cancer is both ineffectual and unnecessary in bringing about that goal. God could just tell people what he wants them to know (or remember) in plain language, in religious experiences, in dreams, or by skywriting. Finally, if childhood suffering and death from cancer are necessary to bring about those greater goods, then it follows that we are preventing the realisation of those greater goods if we should ever completely prevent instances of terminal childhood cancer. So, on your view, morality dictates we should avoid aiming at the eradication of childhood cancer. But that is quite absurd.

SRB

BRO3886

Of course, it also brings into question whether those who believe they're doing Gods work when helping to ease suffering , are being servants of God or heretics.

Alix Nenuphar

Betzerdog, I would argue that your analogy is faulty. It's more a case of, "why doesn't God stop those funny hundred-foot deep pits from randomly materialising under people." Certainly one can make a decent argument from the idea of deserved suffering; but how can one argue that undeserved suffering is a good? After all, having God eliminate undeserved suffering would not violate our free-will....

Steven Carr

But , if to get my freedom, some children have to have Tay-Sachs disease , then so be it. It is a price worth paying.....