- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In my more traditional Mormon days I use to by big time into the concept of suffering four your own good. Use to love to read section 121. All that business about not suffering like Job. How it is all for your good, and you are going to come out on top in the end. Now that I am much older and have seen real suffering I think that is bunk. I do ascribe to some degree to the notion that “that which does not kill you makes you stronger”, but only in general terms. There is a point where suffering seems completely unnecessary.
Sure someone can get up in fast and testimony and go on about the trials in their life with rebellious kids, or health issues. But really these pale I comparison to real suffering that goes on. It is hard to fathom how a 13 year old girl sold into a life of sex slavery it is for her own good. Or a prisoner of war tortured for years on end.
Repeated horrific suffering that goes on in the life of to many seems so pointless, and I find it insulting to those who really suffer to claim my mediocre suffering compares.
Some would say that god will never let you suffer beyond your ability to endure but I think that has been proven wrong over and over again.
I think the atrocities that go on in this world are horrendous, and any claim they have a purpose tends to turn my stomach.
So how does that fit in with a loving god? Is he helpless to intervene? Does he not care to intervene? Or maybe he is off someplace else at the moment on a different project.
Cadence wrote:
So how does that fit in with a loving god? Is he helpless to intervene? Does he not care to intervene? Or maybe he is off someplace else at the moment on a different project.
I think it could be either or both that God may helpless to intervene or not care to intervene. The deist me could buy either of those and the third option – God is doing something else. In my mind those are the only things that could explain a loving God allowing horrific atrocities such as prolonged child abuse.
That said, suffering is one of those things where I think the Buddhists may be on to something. Part of our own theology is that we are here to experience such things as pain so that we might know such things as joy. I also think that fits in with my own deist view – God neither subjects us to suffering nor does God necessarily explicitly condone (or take part in) individual suffering. In other words, suffering just is and how much one suffers is a matter of dumb luck (that last part doesn’t fully fit with Buddhist ideas which would posit that suffering is caused by our own doing).
And, suffering does not necessarily mean that God doesn’t love us. I won’t make the argument that the suffering is because God loves us, but in one sense I think that is true as is the idea that some suffering is good for us. In the broadest sense I do believe that a big part of our experience here is meant to be suffering.
ETA: Immediately after typing the above I burned both my hands getting something out of the microwave. Karma?
Privilege warps much vision when doctrine initially is developed. Suffering is good – if it is not too severe and unrelenting. People facing “normal” or temporary suffering tend to forget or ignore severe, unrelenting suffering simply because they don’t see it – so it isn’t part of their consciousness. One of the reasons I love LDS theology so much (as I understand it) is the idea that NOBODY is damned or even punished after death solely because of their mortal life circumstances. I think our 2nd Article of Faith comes before the explicit statement abou the Atonement for an important reason. I will see if I have written abou that in the past and start a new thread if I have.
Cadence wrote:
So how does that fit in with a loving god? Is he helpless to intervene? Does he not care to intervene? Or maybe he is off someplace else at the moment on a different project.
Personally, I believe God does very little (or nothing) to intervene in our lives. When Adam and Eve (whether literally or figuratively) were cast out of God’s presence, and into the lone and dreary world, they were sent out to experience life in their own. I compare it to sending my kids off to college. As long as they’re living at home, I can create a safe, loving, nurturing environment where they have everything they need and are protected from the outside world (generally). But, when they leave for college, I’ll be sending them out into an imperfect world where they will experience all kinds of positive and negative influences. I believe that almost everything we experience is just life. I don’t believe God is doing anything that will cause suffering, nor avoid suffering. On the flip-side, I also don’t believe God is doing anything that will bring us joy/blessings/happiness. I believe 99.9% of what we experience is simply a result of 1.) our choices, 2.) the impact of other people’s choices, 3.) coincidence, 4.) nature.
When my kids leave home, I’ll have much less influence over what happens in their lives. That doesn’t mean I love them any less. The fact that I’m not intervening to keep them from experiencing any suffering does not mean I don’t care. It means that I’m learning to let go and allow them to start experiencing life. I imagine that will be a hard thing to do. And I imagine it must be hard for God to watch the suffering we all go through.
I don’t think suffering, as a blanket concept, fits with the concept of a loving God. He also told us that we are here to live our lives with Joy. Let me draw on a recent activity in my life — exercising.
I hate exercise, but it’s necessary. So I joined a gymn. Different people were telling me I should use this machine, that machine and do this floor stretch or exercise. This time, I ignored them all after testing their ideas. I tested each exercise to see how comfortable it was. I learned that if I have to stabilize my body to pull a cable with weight on it, I was out. It hurt all over the place. I favored machines that stabilize the body and put it in a comfortable position, and work only the muscle you want to work. I can sustain the workout regimen, I kind of enjoy it, and afterwards, I feel happiness. And I’m seeing results in medication reduction, better physical results like blood pressure, blood sugar, feeling better, parts of the body no longer hurting. This doesn’t mean I’m not working — I am. I’m sweating, I’m exerting myself, the muscles burn as I add weight, and it takes discipline to stick with it. So, don’t think I’m pushing balloons because it’s easy. I’m just reducing the unnecessary suffering with it.
So, I will take the path that leads me to the greatest joy, and that means eliminating unecessary suffering in my life. Pain for pain’s sake is not a good idea.
And I agree that too much suffering CAN break you — that is why people have PTSD, mental problems, and get broken emotionally. Some even commit suicide, welcoming the freedom death is believed to bring from suffering.
I am with Cadence. Choose when you will suffer carefully, and make sure the ratio of suffering to joy is worth it!
SD, that is a great analogy. I recently saw an interview with Stephen Colbert with Anderson Cooper from CNN. Stephen Colbert lost 2 brothers & his Father on the same day from an airplane crash.
He made this statement during the interview:
The exchange, which has now gone viral (I’ve embedded it below), goes like this:
Cooper: “You told an interviewer that you have learned to – in your words – love the thing that I most wish had not happened. You went on to say, ‘What punishments of God are not gifts?’ Do you really believe that?”
Colbert:
“Yes. It’s a gift to exist, and with existence comes suffering. There’s no escaping that.”Here is a link to the story:
Quote:“Life is pain, highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.”
I believe that a significant purpose of religion is to help explain, justify, and add meaning to pain and suffering. We do this to make our short lives in this mortal coil more purposeful. The religious doctrine that works best for an individual can vary greatly depending on their personal experiences. The LDS church’s doctrine does not seem to work well for some people. I find it fascinating that some of the early church fathers (St Paul, St Augustine, and others) were able to interpret the church doctrine based on their own experiences and then impact the trajectory of church doctrine overall as a result. We tend to look back at this and call it revelation when we agree with it and apostacy when we do not.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.