Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GPLindsey · 04-21-2002, 06:57 AM

Perhaps the oldest and most difficult question that religious people have had to address is why there is apparently so much pointless suffering in the world. Despite the many flaws in their thinking, fundamentalists do have an answer of sorts to this question--Adam and Eve's act of original sin and Man's Fall from Grace. The fundamentalists argue that all the suffering we experience is a basically a consequence of this act. This position is easily ridiculed, but it is an attempt to answer the question.

People who are religious but are non-fundamentalists--especially those who accept evolution--are much closer in thinking to atheists on a variety of topics. However, in my opinion their conclusion not to take the Bible literally puts them in a bind as to the question of why the righteous suffer. If there were no Adam and Eve, no Apple, and no Fall from Grace, then there was nothing that Man did way-back-when that could have caused God to be sufficiently annoyed with us to allow suffering to take hold of the world.

So why do he righteous suffer?

Saying they don't know or that it is a Mystery is a very weak come-back. Saying that the Adam and Eve story was allegorical, only meant to illustrate Man's relationship with God, still leaves the question as to why this relationship came about. Was there really some act(s)of original sin that caused humanity to fall from Grace? Was it a real event(s)? Did it take place before civilization started? Was it committed by Homo Sapiens, or by one of our earlier predecessors (Lucy and her mate)?

Or perhaps they read the Adam and Eve story as one of the few things from Genesis that should be taken literally, thus allowing them to make the Original Sin argument. This is a cop-out, since the Adam and Eve story is just as absurd as believing that the universe was created in six days and that there really was a Flood and an Ark. People who do this are just being "cafeteria" Christians in my view, picking and choosing verses to take literally in order to make sense of their theology, but rejecting fundamentalism as a whole.

So my question to the non-fundamentalists among you--if there was no act of Original Sin, then why do the righteous suffer?

MadMordigan · 04-21-2002, 08:02 AM

Saying they don't know or that it is a Mystery is a very weak come-back.

Why is saying 'I don't know' a weak comeback? Better no answer than a false one.

Grumpy · 04-21-2002, 01:50 PM

Why shouldn't the righteous suffer? I mean, I have to. Everybody else has to. How come the righteous deserve better?

Is there supposed to be somebody looking out for their best interests???

GPLindsey · 04-22-2002, 02:34 AM

"It's a mystery" is not a good answer because religion is supposed to provide us with answers to all of Life's important questions. If the answers to all the tough questions is "I don't know," why should I change my views and follow that religion?

I agree with the other posting that the righteous should suffer no more or no less than anyone else. But the question comes up when a religious assertion is made that there is a God looking out for us--if so, then one would assume that this God would look after good people and leave the suffering to the bad. To an atheist, the question of why a Righteous Man suffers is an easy one--he's a victim of circumstance (to quote Curly Howard).

SmashingIdols · 04-22-2002, 07:55 AM

Didn't you know?

The righteous and unrighteous suffer because of the sin of Adam and Eve against God's commandment against eating figs (most likely figs, hence Jesus' curse of this tree not bearing fruit all this time; in any case some "forbidden fruit").

The only way God could remove this curse from man was to have his own perfect son executed. He is SOOOO powerful that if you break his commandments SOMEBODY MUST DIE. Forgiveness in the absence of bloodshed, is ... well ...in conflict to God's mercy and mystery.

You can't really be serious about removing the legitamcy of Adam and Eve's existence right?

That would be a very slippery slope indeed! In the absence of a literal Adam and Eve, there was no literal breaking of his commandment, no literal original sin, no need for salvation, and ultimately no Jesus Christ . And don't forget the endless genealogies that trace themselves back to Adam. Talk about destroying a good story...

The entire foundation of Christianity is a literal Adam and Eve - thus it must be defended to the utmost contortions of logic by every devout Christian, lest this "Mansion of many rooms" should collapse upon itself. Imagine all those eternal souls, having earned their Christian reward, becoming homeless...

(Pay no attention to my bag of Fig Newtons, ten gallon hat, lasso, round-'em-up attitude, and the American Atheist Society brand on the horse, just get along little doggies, get along...)

Tercel · 04-22-2002, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GPLindsey:
"It's a mystery" is not a good answer because religion is supposed to provide us with answers to all of Life's important questions.

Sorry buddy, "supposed to" isn't "does". Religion provides some truth, trying to make it all truth turns it into an emotional crutch.

Quote:

If the answers to all the tough questions is "I don't know," why should I change my views and follow that religion?

Because it's true.

Quote:

I agree with the other posting that the righteous should suffer no more or no less than anyone else. But the question comes up when a religious assertion is made that there is a God looking out for us--if so, then one would assume that this God would look after good people and leave the suffering to the bad.

This is a question that has plagued mankind for centuries. The book of Job, part of the Wisdom Literature, ponders that very question. The conclusion of the author seems to be that God's actions are a mystery. Although, the plot seems to suggest that Satan is responsible for much suffering.

Quote:

To an atheist, the question of why a Righteous Man suffers is an easy one--he's a victim of circumstance (to quote Curly Howard).

That would seem to be trivially true.

Automaton · 04-22-2002, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Sorry buddy, "supposed to" isn't "does". Religion provides some truth, trying to make it all truth turns it into an emotional crutch.

Just what truth does it provide (if any at all) then? How would making religion more rational by not evoking "mystery" at every tough philosophical question, make it into an emotional crutch? I mean if it provides merely the "truth" that we fly off to heaven when we die, but just invokes "mystery" for everything else, wouldn't that be far more of just a crutch than if it provided answers to the mysteries?

Quote:

Because it's true.

It is? Woah, I must have been mistaken all these years! I convert!

Quote:

This is a question that has plagued mankind for centuries. The book of Job, part of the Wisdom Literature, ponders that very question. The conclusion of the author seems to be that God's actions are a mystery. Although, the plot seems to suggest that Satan is responsible for much suffering.

So God's fucking us and won't tell us why, and threw Satan in there to torment us as well just for the fun of it? Now I know why you guys say "God is love"!

Quote:

That would seem to be trivially true.

Meh, why do I bother?

Tercel · 04-23-2002, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Automaton:
How would making religion more rational by not evoking "mystery" at every tough philosophical question, make it into an emotional crutch?

I'm not suggesting we don't try and solve such questions. I'm simply pointing out that there are some questions about the world which Christianity in particular doesn't answer clearly. Certainly we can think about possible answers, but we do need to accept that we can't always have clear answers or know everything. Those people who can't accept the fact that they are some things we don't know for sure, tend, in my experience, to construct ad hoc religious answers and make their religion into an emotional crutch that puts the world in a nice box full of answers for them.
As someone who values religion for its truth content, I don't tend to appreciate it when people follow this god-of-answers-of-the-gaps kind of methodology.

The whole point being this:
I could give my thoughts on why the righteous suffer. I could give several possible solutions to the problem and debate the merits of each of them with you all. Indeed, I've done so before on this forum. But the truth of the matter is, of course that I don't actually know the answer. God hasn't revealed a full and complete list of reasons as to exactly why each and every righteous person who suffers does so.
I am myself quite happy with the answer "mystery". There are some things we simply haven't been told, and instead of moaning like children that we haven't been told all the answers yet, we should be concentrating on the answers we have got and the implications they have for us in our lives.

scumble · 04-23-2002, 03:50 AM

Tercel, regarding your reference to Job. When I read this, I saw that satan, in this case, is actually instructed by God to inflict suffering on Job, and is forbidden to take his life though.
This suggests two things:

1) Satan may enjoy inflicting pain, but is ultimately doing God's bidding.

2) God uses suffering to demonstrate something about Job's faith.

It seems to me that the usual Christian answer is that God uses suffering to achieve some greater end, and because God created everything, he has every right to use us humans as he wants etc.
This is all very well, but I would put it to you that you don't need to believe in God to realise that good can come out of suffering - it can teach us things.
Perhaps when GPLindsey mentioned pointless suffering, maybe (he?) was pointing to events which appear to have no good come out of them.
But the Christian may come back and say: "How do you know that no good will come of it - how can we comprehend with our finite human brains?"
Even then, we've got the problem of good. If God determines what is good, and we have limited human understanding, how do we know when something is good in God's eyes?
I'd say that in the end, if good does come out of suffering, it's because humans change as a result and do something differently. We can only say it's good because it seems that way to us.

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: scumble ]</p>

wild ox · 04-23-2002, 05:32 AM

GPLindsey,
You were wise to add "apparently" to "so much pointless suffering in the world". Could it be that we cannot understand what the point is. Can we logically prove that "suffering" and even "death" and "Hell" are "BAD" or "Evil"? Mabey they are good things from a different perspective.

04-21-2002, 06:57 AM	#1
GPLindsey Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 221	If no Original Sin, then why DO the Righteous suffer? Perhaps the oldest and most difficult question that religious people have had to address is why there is apparently so much pointless suffering in the world. Despite the many flaws in their thinking, fundamentalists do have an answer of sorts to this question--Adam and Eve's act of original sin and Man's Fall from Grace. The fundamentalists argue that all the suffering we experience is a basically a consequence of this act. This position is easily ridiculed, but it is an attempt to answer the question. People who are religious but are non-fundamentalists--especially those who accept evolution--are much closer in thinking to atheists on a variety of topics. However, in my opinion their conclusion not to take the Bible literally puts them in a bind as to the question of why the righteous suffer. If there were no Adam and Eve, no Apple, and no Fall from Grace, then there was nothing that Man did way-back-when that could have caused God to be sufficiently annoyed with us to allow suffering to take hold of the world. So why do he righteous suffer? Saying they don't know or that it is a Mystery is a very weak come-back. Saying that the Adam and Eve story was allegorical, only meant to illustrate Man's relationship with God, still leaves the question as to why this relationship came about. Was there really some act(s)of original sin that caused humanity to fall from Grace? Was it a real event(s)? Did it take place before civilization started? Was it committed by Homo Sapiens, or by one of our earlier predecessors (Lucy and her mate)? Or perhaps they read the Adam and Eve story as one of the few things from Genesis that should be taken literally, thus allowing them to make the Original Sin argument. This is a cop-out, since the Adam and Eve story is just as absurd as believing that the universe was created in six days and that there really was a Flood and an Ark. People who do this are just being "cafeteria" Christians in my view, picking and choosing verses to take literally in order to make sense of their theology, but rejecting fundamentalism as a whole. So my question to the non-fundamentalists among you--if there was no act of Original Sin, then why do the righteous suffer?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-21-2002, 08:02 AM	#2
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	Saying they don't know or that it is a Mystery is a very weak come-back. Why is saying 'I don't know' a weak comeback? Better no answer than a false one.

04-21-2002, 01:50 PM	#3
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	Why shouldn't the righteous suffer? I mean, I have to. Everybody else has to. How come the righteous deserve better? Is there supposed to be somebody looking out for their best interests???

04-22-2002, 02:34 AM	#4
GPLindsey Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 221	"It's a mystery" is not a good answer because religion is supposed to provide us with answers to all of Life's important questions. If the answers to all the tough questions is "I don't know," why should I change my views and follow that religion? I agree with the other posting that the righteous should suffer no more or no less than anyone else. But the question comes up when a religious assertion is made that there is a God looking out for us--if so, then one would assume that this God would look after good people and leave the suffering to the bad. To an atheist, the question of why a Righteous Man suffers is an easy one--he's a victim of circumstance (to quote Curly Howard).

04-22-2002, 07:55 AM	#5
SmashingIdols Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 153	Didn't you know? The righteous and unrighteous suffer because of the sin of Adam and Eve against God's commandment against eating figs (most likely figs, hence Jesus' curse of this tree not bearing fruit all this time; in any case some "forbidden fruit"). The only way God could remove this curse from man was to have his own perfect son executed. He is SOOOO powerful that if you break his commandments SOMEBODY MUST DIE. Forgiveness in the absence of bloodshed, is ... well ...in conflict to God's mercy and mystery. You can't really be serious about removing the legitamcy of Adam and Eve's existence right? That would be a very slippery slope indeed! In the absence of a literal Adam and Eve, there was no literal breaking of his commandment, no literal original sin, no need for salvation, and ultimately no Jesus Christ . And don't forget the endless genealogies that trace themselves back to Adam. Talk about destroying a good story... The entire foundation of Christianity is a literal Adam and Eve - thus it must be defended to the utmost contortions of logic by every devout Christian, lest this "Mansion of many rooms" should collapse upon itself. Imagine all those eternal souls, having earned their Christian reward, becoming homeless... (Pay no attention to my bag of Fig Newtons, ten gallon hat, lasso, round-'em-up attitude, and the American Atheist Society brand on the horse, just get along little doggies, get along...)

04-23-2002, 03:50 AM	#9
scumble Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 279	Tercel, regarding your reference to Job. When I read this, I saw that satan, in this case, is actually instructed by God to inflict suffering on Job, and is forbidden to take his life though. This suggests two things: 1) Satan may enjoy inflicting pain, but is ultimately doing God's bidding. 2) God uses suffering to demonstrate something about Job's faith. It seems to me that the usual Christian answer is that God uses suffering to achieve some greater end, and because God created everything, he has every right to use us humans as he wants etc. This is all very well, but I would put it to you that you don't need to believe in God to realise that good can come out of suffering - it can teach us things. Perhaps when GPLindsey mentioned pointless suffering, maybe (he?) was pointing to events which appear to have no good come out of them. But the Christian may come back and say: "How do you know that no good will come of it - how can we comprehend with our finite human brains?" Even then, we've got the problem of good. If God determines what is good, and we have limited human understanding, how do we know when something is good in God's eyes? I'd say that in the end, if good does come out of suffering, it's because humans change as a result and do something differently. We can only say it's good because it seems that way to us. [ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: scumble ]</p>

04-23-2002, 05:32 AM	#10
wild ox Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Alabama Posts: 29	GPLindsey, You were wise to add "apparently" to "so much pointless suffering in the world". Could it be that we cannot understand what the point is. Can we logically prove that "suffering" and even "death" and "Hell" are "BAD" or "Evil"? Mabey they are good things from a different perspective.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.