Suffering Of The Righteous

[ELF1024]

Sure, let's do more! Let's not wait on God!

The discussion, however, and what I was addressing was a different question. Can't you distinguish that, for Pete's sake?! I explained why this is irrelevant to THIS specific discussion; read what I wrote and try to understand it.

Oh I understood, I just find your commentary irrelevant as you don't believe in God anyway.

[elguanteloko]

Oh I understood, I just find your commentary irrelevant as you don't believe in God anyway.

Whether I believe in God or not doesn't say anything about the validity of the reasons and objections I gave; that's an ad hominem red herring. Again, I was granting premises to show why the reasons presented don't work.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 31 May 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:

If you don't have a larger picture of life, all suffering is bad, and yet, the person who never suffers is probably the most stunted ignorant individual upon the earth. As such, do we really want our children to be so incredibly stupid?

And since suffering is ultimately subjective, any type could be considered terrible by the individual.

Would you allow children getting raped and tortured for them to get "less stupid"? Would you concept for another person to allow children getting raped and tortured for them to get "less stupid"?

Once children are out on their own making their own way in the world and having the right of choice, even as they hurt each other, how does one propose to stop it?

What if the right of choice was the path they took, even with full disclosure that bad things may happen to them, and you yourself promised to keep the interference to a minimum?

And your appeal to emotion, rape being terrible of course. But what if such a rape can be healed and the terrible occurance placed in an eternal perspective, like being born cripple? What then?

Quote

One persons diet is another persons starvation. You cannot argue subjectives since they are mere opinion unless you have an absolute standard by which to judge.

...and you judge that standard to be absolute, how, exactly?

Shrug, that is God's standard, so I cannot explain it to you. If I could, it is doubtful you would understand anyway since your argument echoes your previous discussions regarding a disdain for the spiritual or those things beyond your ability to comprehend.

Quote

If your perspective is not myopic or short sighted and if you perspective is longer than this life, then the suffering is short in the realm of eternity, and it is for the better, when an ojective absolute standard is applied. The argument therefore is whether or not this world is all there is. Not why God allows suffering.

So, let's say this life is not all there is... how does that change things?

It means the pain and suffering are short. It means that there is a greater absolute truth beyond this one. It means that all we experience makes us stronger in the next life. It changes everything.

[elguanteloko]

eguanteloko:

I do read the Bible. I see lots of individuals using God as an excuse for their own violent behavior, or an explanation for devastating events they don't understand. Perception and reality are often very different things.

Are you going to address what I wrote or not? "Have you read the Bible?" was a rhetorical question for you to get the point that God is quite violent. Read my previous post to you again, please.

[Jeff K.]

ELF1024, on 31 May 2011 - 03:09 PM, said:

Oh I understood, I just find your commentary irrelevant as you don't believe in God anyway.

Whether I believe in God or not doesn't say anything about the validity of the reasons and objections I gave; that's an ad hominem red herring. Again, I was granting premises to show why the reasons presented don't work.

Yes it does. If you do not believe then you cannot comprehend. Which makes your judgement invalid since comprehension is required to understand the answer. You grant a premises without understanding the premises and so you end up frustrted because your cognition is inadequate to the task of contextually understanding something greater than yourself.

[ELF1024]

Whether I believe in God or not doesn't say anything about the validity of the reasons and objections I gave;

It's like arguing with a blind man about the color red.

[Jeff K.]

He doesn't understand that analogy.... I used the color yellow.

But then, he doesn't understand alot of things.

[elguanteloko]

Once children are out on their own making their own way in the world and having the right of choice, even as they hurt each other, how does one propose to stop it?

What if the right of choice was the path they took, even with full disclosure that bad things may happen to them, and you yourself promised to keep the interference to a minimum?

And your appeal to emotion, rape being terrible of course. But what if such a rape can be healed and the terrible occurance placed in an eternal perspective, like being born cripple? What then?

You didn't answer the question. Also, that you can be healed COMPLETELY of the cigarette burns I inflict upon you doesn't mean it is now OK for me to burn you with cigarettes. That you can recover from evil actions doesn't mean those actions are now OK to inflict on people.

Shrug, that is God's standard, so I cannot explain it to you. If I could, it is doubtful you would understand anyway since your argument echoes your previous discussions regarding a disdain for the spiritual or those things beyond your ability to comprehend.

I'm not asking you what God's standard is. I'm asking you how you realize God's standard (which you say you comprehend but I can't) is absolute?

It means the pain and suffering are short.

Rape, torture, burnings, murders, etc can be short, too... does that mean people can do them because they can be done in a short amount of time?

It means that there is a greater absolute truth beyond this one.

...OK. I'm asking you how that changes anything. That I torture person X in my house but I tell him that I'll take him to his house after I'm done, does that mean the torture was not justified? That's how ridiculous this response is.

It means that all we experience makes us stronger in the next life. It changes everything.

Again, that rape can "make you stronger in the next life" doesn't mean allowing you to get raped is OK. That's the point.

None of your reasons here work. Try again.

[elguanteloko]

It's like arguing with a blind man about the color red.

Classic response form someone who can't give reasons.

I gave reasons. Did you understand them?

[ELF1024]

I gave reasons. Did you understand them?

I understood your reasoning. I don't agree with it.

[ELF1024]

Classic response form someone who can't give reasons.

I gave reasons. Did you understand them?

Funny, I gave reasons in my response, did you not understand it?

God does not cause suffering. He may allow it, but he does not cause it.

The Stigmata is just simply someone who has becomes so obsessed with their own righteousness that he/she is causing himself physical injury. I believe they are doing it to themselves.

Or to /verbose

The stigmata is evidence of someone who has a mental illness, and is mutilating themselves in a fashion to try and get attention for being "pious". It is an attention getting behavior that has been condoned and even encouraged by the Catholic Church, but it is not something "of God".

Then you came in later ranting about how it was all God's fault... which is typical of someone who doesn't believe in God to blame it on their favorite invisible nemesis.

[elguanteloko]

I understood your reasoning. I don't agree with it.

I got that but the point is to give reasons, not just state you don't agree with me.

[elguanteloko]

Funny, I gave reasons in my response, did you not understand it?

ELF, ad hominems and red herrings aren't reasons. I explained why they aren't.

Or to /verbose

The stigmata is evidence of someone who has a mental illness, and is mutilating themselves in a fashion to try and get attention for being "pious". It is an attention getting behavior that has been condoned and even encouraged by the Catholic Church, but it is not something "of God".

Then you came in later ranting about how it was all God's fault... which is typical of someone who doesn't believe in God to blame it on their favorite invisible nemesis.

I never said it was all God's fault... you didn't get my post.

[ELF1024]

I got that but the point is to give reasons, not just state you don't agree with me.

In Job, Satan had to ask God's permission to act upon Job. It wasn't God causing the suffering, but he was allowing it. In the end, Job was rewarded with more than he had originally.

[ELF1024]

I never said it was all God's fault... you didn't get my post.

If God created the conditions in which he knew extreme suffering would take place then he is just as responsible as any criminal who directly inflicts pain.

Really? Did God not create the world? Did God not create the criminal? By your logic would it not be God's fault?

"Just as responsible" is just hiding behind the fact that God created them.... if he hadn't created them, suffering wouldn't happen, and no one would be at fault, but because God created them, and suffering happens it must be God's fault... or am I not understanding...

[LeSellers]

I attended OCS in Ft Benning, Georgia, and several other military schools all designed to push me to my physical limits and by that means test, and more importantly increase, my spiritual (the Army used a different term, but it is the same) capacity and dedication. By the crazy one's logic, the Army was cruel and vicious, and could not actually exist.

Navy Seals, and all the other Special Forces types in the military go through agonies of body and mind unknown (and unknowable) to people who have not experienced them. (I am not comparing my training with these true heroes, it would have been only a tiny foretaste, had I determined to try any of those routes.)

Yet these experiences made them and me what we are today. These sufferings contributed to my being able to withstand greater pressures than I could have before.

Why is it wrong, then, for God to test us with sufferings when it is not wrong, and even laudable, for the Navy to do the same thing? The same thing, and for a less desirable goal?

The only difference, as far as I can tell, between what my Tac Officers did to me, and what God allows to happen to us, is that I knew exactly why it was happening on Stewart Watson Field and the fire ant hils there, and most people do not know why they are going through the trials here.

We all signed up, and we knew, as much as we could comprehend then, what it would entail. Just as there were men in my OCS platoon who gave up, who decided it was not worth the pain, there are those here who choose to question why this world is as it is. Their questions are valid, but their understanding is fatally flawed, and they cannot accept the answers.

I am reminded of the scripture: "... know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good."

Lehi

[bookofmormontruth]

Really? Did God not create the world? Did God not create the criminal? By your logic would it not be God's fault?

"Just as responsible" is just hiding behind the fact that God created them.... if he hadn't created them, suffering wouldn't happen, and no one would be at fault, but because God created them, and suffering happens it must be God's fault... or am I not understanding...

Based on the predictable common theme of elguanteloko's posts, I am just going to take a random guess and predict that he will reply that you are not "understanding".

[elguanteloko]

In Job, Satan had to ask God's permission to act upon Job. It wasn't God causing the suffering, but he was allowing it.

Again, if I can stop someone getting murdered with the snap of my fingers and nothing more but I don't do it, how is that not wrong?

In the end, Job was rewarded with more than he had originally.

Doesn't matter. If I steal all you have but after a time I give you all you had and even more, does that mean that it was not bad to steal the first time?

[bookofmormontruth]

I attended OCS in Ft Benning, Georgia, and several other military schools all designed to push me to my physical limits and by that means test, and more importantly increase) my spiritual (the Army used a different term, but it is the same) capacity and dedication. By the crazy one's logic, the Army was cruel and vicious, and could not actually exist.

Navy Seals, and all the other Special Forces types in the military go through agonies of body and mind unknown (and unknowable) to people who have not experienced them. (I am not comparing my training with these true heroes, it would have been only a tiny foretaste, had I determined to try any of those routes.)

Yet these experiences made them and me what we are today. These sufferings contributed to my being able to withstand greater pressures than I could have before.

Why is it wrong, then, for God to test us with sufferings when it is not wrong, and even laudable, for the Navy to do the same thing? The same thing, and for a less desirable goal?

The only difference, as far as I can tell, between what my Tac Officers did to me, and what God allows to happen to us, is that I knew exactly why it was happening on Stewart Watson Field and the fire ant hils there, and most people do not know why they are going through the trials here.

We all signed up, and we knew, as much as we could comprehend then, what it would entail. Just as there were men in my OCS platoon who gave up, who decided it was not worth the pain, there are those here who choose to question why this world is as it is. Their questions are valid, but their understanding is fatally flawed, and they cannot accept the answers.

I am reminded of the scripture: "... know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good."

Lehi

Excellent answer!

[ELF1024]

Based on the predictable common theme of elguanteloko's posts, I am just going to take a random guess and predict that he will reply to you that you are not "understanding".

That would make sense.

I do believe that the formation of the Universe is still considered God's greatest mistake... at least by Hitchhiker's logic...

[Maidservant]

If Christ is truly a revelation of God, then it is mankind who requires violence, and imposes violence on God, and not God who imposes violence on us. Humans are the hands through which God works. When mankind didn't save Christ from being murdered, when mankind chose to rebel against the divine Will and kill Christ, perhaps we are to understand that this was a revelation of God not being able to save Christ from being murdered.

If our understanding of God in this generation is meant to be understood as a Perfect Divine Parent, then we need to re-interpret and re-think a lot of what we know about what has been attributed to God in the scriptural past based on previous ancient generations' conceptions of His character and nature (Warrior & Conquering King).

When the revelation of the Father arrived, Man killed Him. Man kills God. God does not kill man. I believe more and more that The Gospel is designed to transform all the world into the likeness of God, and to guide us (generationally) into a people who would not desire to kill God - who would assist in fulfilling God's true will and desire.

Violence reveals the problem God is trying to overcome, and needs us to assist with. Not something that God imposes on us or desires to happen as part of His greater plan.

Advances in medicine and medical sciences I view as being part of divine inspiration, and tools we need to continue to devote our resources to in order to better fulful God's Will.

I love what you say here. Also, we have to realize that the pattern of Christ is a wounded God. God can be and is wounded. Why? Who and/or what is God? (Us.)

Sure but this is irrelevant to the present discussion. This is like asking, "what are WE doing to raise our kids better?" in a court trying to determine whether person X tortured his child to death. Yes, we should ask that question (and many other questions relating to how we ought to behave) but this is another issue. We are discussing the role of God in suffering.

....

Well, yes, sure we need to do more or do if we aren't doing... but this is besides the point of what the role of God is in suffering.

It isn't as much as you might think it is. At the level at which we are discussing these matters, your insistence that God is external to the mortal or human being is a premise that obviously we are not accepting in terms of this discussion. God is us. The creation of this world is in our hands. It's internal God, not external. Have you ever watched Kung Fu Panda? And the quest for the precious dragon scroll that bestowed great power on the chosen one? And the grand secret was either 1) blank; or 2) a mirror? For those who cannot understand the mirror part, only see blank or nothing. Many of us on a search for God have found the dragon scroll, particularly as it relates to this question of suffering. In struggling with this question of suffering, we are also confronting the question of the nature of God, and you are calling us back to a 2-D version that we left behind a while back, so to speak. That's why we can't discuss it with you the way you want us to. I mean, it's fine if you want that discussion, but it's not where some of us are at (not saying it's better or worse, just a different premise).

Why wait on God, we are the ones we have been waiting for.

Dragon scroll.

God certainly has done much violence so,

Yes, God being us.

what do you mean he doesn't impose violence on us? Have you read the Bible?

The Bible is an ancient revelation of God . . . or ancient perception . . . we HAVE to leave it behind in some ways, if not in most or all ways--we have to grow and become and transform beyond the dispensation of that age. Of course some of the greatest truths are also ancient and have to be re-covered. Obviously LDS are not beholden to the infallibility of the Bible and are able to find whatever understanding can be personally revealed to them, including the purpose or source of the violence in the Bible. You will find a different opinion or reconciliation from every LDS person regarding it, likely, including those who will flatly reject that it had anything to do with God at all. I am probably one of those, although I am still thinking through it (in between laundry and visiting teaching and what not, you know ).

Sure, let's do more! Let's not wait on God!

The discussion, however, and what I was addressing was a different question. Can't you distinguish that, for Pete's sake?! I explained why this is irrelevant to THIS specific discussion; read what I wrote and try to understand it.

Except this is exactly where our thoughts and beliefs have to come to. We set down the idea that God is some old guy in a white robe and beard guarding the pearly gates and dispensing reward and wrath. We have to find out something different. Like, perhaps, that God is us. Or at least entertain the possibility. The God you are asking us to maintain here, we already know we cannot. So why do you call us back to it? (by the way, read Moses 7 if you haven't before . . . the weeping God).

It means the pain and suffering are short. It means that there is a greater absolute truth beyond this one. It means that all we experience makes us stronger in the next life. It changes everything.

It reminds me of the movie version of Nicholas Nickleby with Anne Hathaway. And all that Nicholas Nickleby learned about suffering, and how I learned it too. He was crying in one scene and said something like, "God, if my suffering is making me strong, is this what my strength is for? more suffering?" He said it better than that, but I encourage everyone to watch that movie.

[elguanteloko]

Really? Did God not create the world? Did God not create the criminal? By your logic would it not be God's fault?

I wrote: "I never said it was all God's fault... you didn't get my post."

"Just as responsible" is just hiding behind the fact that God created them.... if he hadn't created them, suffering wouldn't happen, and no one would be at fault, but because God created them, and suffering happens it must be God's fault... or am I not understanding...

Let's say we are both driving drunk with a child in the front seat; you are driving your car and I'm driving mine. If you and I have an accident with each other in which both our passengers die, who was at fault? Again, I never said it was ALL God's fault.

[ELF1024]

I wrote: "I never said it was all God's fault... you didn't get my post."

Let's say we are both driving drunk with a child in the front seat; you are driving your car and I'm driving mine. If you and I have an accident with each other in which both our passengers die, who was at fault? Again, I never said it was ALL God's fault.

yeah yeah sure... except that God created both of us and was allowing us to drive drunk. If God had just struck us dead the passengers would still be alive....

Sure... not all God's fault... but he doesn't exist anyway, at least not in your universe... So yeah... whatever...

[elguanteloko]

I love what you say here. Also, we have to realize that the pattern of Christ is a wounded God. God can be and is wounded. Why? Who and/or what is God? (Us.)

It isn't as much as you might think it is. At the level at which we are discussing these matters, your insistence that God is external to the mortal or human being is a premise that obviously we are not accepting in terms of this discussion. God is us. The creation of this world is in our hands. It's internal God, not external. Have you ever watched Kung Fu Panda? And the quest for the precious dragon scroll that bestowed great power on the chosen one? And the grand secret was either 1) blank; or 2) a mirror? For those who cannot understand the mirror part, only see blank or nothing. Many of us on a search for God have found the dragon scroll, particularly as it relates to this question of suffering. In struggling with this question of suffering, we are also confronting the question of the nature of God, and you are calling us back to a 2-D version that we left behind a while back, so to speak. That's why we can't discuss it with you the way you want us to. I mean, it's fine if you want that discussion, but it's not where some of us are at (not saying it's better or worse, just a different premise).

Dragon scroll.

Yes, God being us.

The Bible is an ancient revelation of God . . . or ancient perception . . . we HAVE to leave it behind in some ways, if not in most or all ways--we have to grow and become and transform beyond the dispensation of that age. Of course some of the greatest truths are also ancient and have to be re-covered. Obviously LDS are not beholden to the infallibility of the Bible and are able to find whatever understanding can be personally revealed to them, including the purpose or source of the violence in the Bible. You will find a different opinion or reconciliation from every LDS person regarding it, likely, including those who will flatly reject that it had anything to do with God at all. I am probably one of those, although I am still thinking through it (in between laundry and visiting teaching and what not, you know ).

Except this is exactly where our thoughts and beliefs have to come to. We set down the idea that God is some old guy in a white robe and beard guarding the pearly gates and dispensing reward and wrath. We have to find out something different. Like, perhaps, that God is us. Or at least entertain the possibility. The God you are asking us to maintain here, we already know we cannot. So why do you call us back to it? (by the way, read Moses 7 if you haven't before . . . the weeping God).

It reminds me of the movie version of Nicholas Nickleby with Anne Hathaway. And all that Nicholas Nickleby learned about suffering, and how I learned it too. He was crying in one scene and said something like, "God, if my suffering is making me strong, is this what my strength is for? more suffering?" He said it better than that, but I encourage everyone to watch that movie.

"God is us" is not a conception of God I'm using here. You can name "God" anything you want and then say my criticism doesn't apply. I'm speaking of the Christian-Mormon conception of God.

[elguanteloko]

yeah yeah sure... except that God created both of us and was allowing us to drive drunk. If God had just struck us dead the passengers would still be alive....

Sure... not all God's fault... but he doesn't exist anyway, at least not in your universe... So yeah... whatever...

When trying to show someone why they are wrong you just don't say they are wrong, you need to explain why and there are several ways to do that. One of them is to show them the absurdity of their beliefs by granting some premises and illustrate why they are contradictory or inconsistent with other beliefs they have or how their conclusions don't follow from the premises, etc. That's what I'm doing here. I can't even say of very basic this is; I'm saddened.