God and suffering?

[friarMatt]

We were having a discussion in class in regards to the question of God and suffering...one person was saying God causes suffering? And I couldn't accept that, I was arguing God allows it, but suffering is more the fault of humanity because of sin etc...


any insights? thoughts?

[DingoBot]

God Allows Suffering
by Maggie Geene

used with permission

When everything in our lives is going normally, it is easy to believe in a God that loves us and wants only the best for us. When things go wrong, though, we begin to struggle. Why would a God that loves us and wants the best for us allow bad things to happen in our lives.

This is one of the hardest concepts for people to understand. Many saints struggled with pain and suffering in their lives. Many theologians have tried to find the answers. Though we may never really know why God allows suffering, we may be able to understand where suffering fits into our relationship with a God who loves us completely.

In the book of Genesis we find that God created Adam and Eve, and gave them everything they could ever want or need so long as they followed His will for their lives and stayed away from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. We also know that Satan tricked them into eating of the fruit of this tree. Satan made them believe that their will was better for their lives than God's will would have been. Out of their own free will, they disobeyed God and were cast out of the garden to fend for themselves. Did God cause their suffering? No. Did God allow them to choose of their own free will to bring the suffering upon themselves? Yes.

In our lives then, some of the suffering which we face is because of our free will choices. If we put ourselves in situations in which we might get hurt, or cause harm to others, it wouldn't be right of us to say that God caused this suffering. We freely chose to place ourselves in harm's way. We must take responsibility for our own actions that cause the pain and suffering.

Sometimes the free will choices of others cause us pain and suffering through no fault of our own. If we are in an accident caused by a drunken or reckless driver, if we are injured by someone who is committing a crime, if someone attacks us without provocation, then even though we are blameless we bear the consequences of the gift of free will that God gives to all people. Should God restrict the free will of others in order to protect us? It is the nature of free will, that it has to be totally free for everyone or it is not free for anyone.

Often the free will choices of others can have great impact upon our lives. The greed and arrogance of some political leaders has caused war, massive famine, and much pain and suffering to the people not only of their country, but of wider regions of the world.

People who drive a car with impaired judgement due to alcohol or drug use, or lack of sleep endanger not only their own lives but the lives of everyone else they encounter along their way.

We cannot control the free will of others, but we can help to alleviate some of the pain and suffering that their choices cause. We can learn from the disastrous choices of others how not to make those same choices ourselves. We can also bring aid to those who are the innocent victims of the wrong choices of others.

If we learn to be a responsible, defensive driver, then we will be much safer when we are on the road. If we know what things can harm our health, then we can choose to live a healthier lifestyle. If we see the effect on other people's grades of their lazy attitude toward their school work, then we can make it a priority to get our work done on time.

Because God loves us and wants the best for us, we can know that even in our most troubling and pain filled times He will never leave us forsaken. We simply have to call out to him for help and he will come to our aide. Though throughout history there are many stories of miraculous events and healings that can be attributed to God, His plan for our lives may not include being healed or having our troubles removed.

We can take the difficult times and situations in our own lives, and with God's assistance and love we can learn great lessons from them. When we don't make a sports team, or don't get the kind of playing time that we would like, then we can work harder to develop our skills, and keep trying to prove that we deserve a spot on the team. When some accident or injury causes us to be handicapped we can learn to live our lives as fully as we are able. We can grow stronger through the difficult times in our lives

We can be an example to others in how we handle the difficult situations we encounter. If we continue on in faith that God loves us, and will strengthen us even in our suffering, others will see our faithfulness. We can rely upon the promise that Paul tells us in his letter to the Romans, that all things work for good for those who love the Lord and are called according to His purpose. (Rom. 8:28) We can find the grace in every situation. In our weakness we can grow strong with God's love..

[DingoBot]

This pertains to the keywords "God" and "suffering". The source is Catholic (www.ewtn.com). I hope this helps.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/CHILDREN.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/CHILDREN.TXT[/url]

[shortnun]

I'll look up a reference to the theologian Masao Abe.... he's a Buddhist scholar who's brought his tradition into conversation with Western religions. He speaks deeply and insightfully about a suffering God.

But until I find the Abe (pron: AB-ay) reference... I can recommend a feminist source. The final chapter of Elizabeth Johnson's "She Who Is" (Crossroad: 2003), is entitled "Suffering God: Compassion Poured Out."

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/hlthwork/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html"]Salvifici Doloris[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Jan 1 2006, 10:46 PM'][url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/hlthwork/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html"]Salvifici Doloris[/url]
[right][snapback]842932[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[img]http://www.galapagosinc.com/youreawesome4fi.gif[/img]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 1 2006, 11:57 PM'][img]http://www.galapagosinc.com/youreawesome4fi.gif[/img]
[right][snapback]842949[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm sorry, but you won't beat Theoketos as the king of randomness.




...oh, see, that took so long to load that I couldn't see the ending before...

Yes, yes...I am awesome.























...no, not really...but Pope John Paul the Great is. :

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Jan 1 2006, 11:07 PM']I'm sorry, but you won't beat Theoketos as the king of randomness.
...oh, see, that took so long to load that I couldn't see the ending before...

Yes, yes...I am awesome.
...no, not really...but Pope John Paul the Great is. :
[right][snapback]842965[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[img]http://www.galapagosinc.com/wonkayoulose.gif[/img]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 2 2006, 12:09 AM']if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[img]http://www.galapagosinc.com/wonkayoulose.gif[/img]
[right][snapback]842971[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Christie_M]

*cracks up*

[Ave Maria Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jan 2 2006, 12:09 AM']if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[img]http://www.galapagosinc.com/wonkayoulose.gif[/img]
[right][snapback]842971[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Wow that rules beyond understanding

[Ave Maria Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Jan 1 2006, 11:46 PM'][url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/hlthwork/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html"]Salvifici Doloris[/url]
[right][snapback]842932[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

hehe and thanks for posting this letter

[DingoBot]

[quote name='Ave Maria Totus Tuus' date='Jan 2 2006, 01:42 AM']hehe and thanks for posting this letter 
[right][snapback]843123[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm glad you're amused. And thanks for posting that letter.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='friarMatt' date='Jan 1 2006, 08:33 PM']We were having a discussion in class in regards to the question of God and suffering...one person was saying God causes suffering? And I couldn't accept that, I was arguing God allows it, but suffering is more the fault of humanity because of sin etc...
any insights? thoughts?
[right][snapback]842827[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

St. Anselm makes the distinction between 6 different kinds of agency, and these distinctions are extremely applicable to the present question. Here are the distinctions:

1.) X causes Y
2.) X does not cause not Y
3.) X causes a state of affairs that enables Y
4.) X does not cause a state of affairs that prevents Y
5.) X directly prevents a state of affairs that prevents Y
6.) X does not directly prevent a state of affairs that enables Y

So, now lets look at these in the context of suffering, we have 6 possiblities regarding God's agency related to suffering:

1.) God causes suffering
2.) God does not cause not suffering
3.) God causes a state of affairs that enables suffering
4.) God does not cause a state of affairs that prevents suffering
5.) God directly prevents a state of affairs that prevents suffering
6.) God does not directly prevent a state of affairs that enables suffering

God's agency is clearly limited to 2,3,4, and 6, not to 1 and 5. It is important to note that only in 1 is there any semblance of direct causal agency. In 3-6, the issue is not direct cause, but causing of possibility. In 2, we are not talking about direct cause, only direct prevention.

So, while we [i]can[/i] say that "God causes suffering" in some sense, we do so improperly, since we are not speaking with reference to the primary meaning of the phrase, but rather, only with reference to secondary agency.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Semalsia]

[quote name='JeffCR07']So, while we can say that "God causes suffering" in some sense, we do so improperly, since we are not speaking with reference to the primary meaning of the phrase, but rather, only with reference to secondary agency.[/quote]

I disagree. Since God was the first and only cause, everything that happened after happened because of God. It's like if I were to design and build a zoo (with no human workers) in which all the animals later ended up suffering greatly. That would be a bad zoo and I would get the blame for screwing up the design. People wouldn't be saying "well, she wasn't expected to end their suffering, so it's not her fault they are still suffering", even if it was true. The point is that they are suffering in the first place.

Also, saying that God is not the [i]direct[/i] cause would be silly. Someone who lights up the fuse of a bomb with full knowledge that it will set up the bomb, is the cause of the following explosion and not just the burning fuse.

[shortnun]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 1 2006, 11:36 PM']I'll look up a reference to the theologian Masao Abe.... he's a Buddhist scholar who's brought his tradition into conversation with Western religions. He speaks deeply and insightfully about a suffering God.
[right][snapback]842924[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Just remember, no one ever died as a result of an ecumenical Buddhist-Christian dialogue. : : I'm just sorry I can't find a link to this online.... maybe someone else can...

Masao Abe, "Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata," in [i]Divine Emptiness and Historical Fullness: A Buddhist Jewish Christian Conversation with Masao Abe[/i], ed. Christopher Ives (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995).

[jmjtina]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jan 2 2006, 09:09 AM'][quote name='JeffCR07']So, while we can say that "God causes suffering" in some sense, we do so improperly, since we are not speaking with reference to the primary meaning of the phrase, but rather, only with reference to secondary agency.[/quote]

I disagree. Since God was the first and only cause, everything that happened after happened because of God. It's like if I were to design and build a zoo (with no human workers) in which all the animals later ended up suffering greatly. That would be a bad zoo and I would get the blame for screwing up the design. People wouldn't be saying "well, she wasn't expected to end their suffering, so it's not her fault they are still suffering", even if it was true. The point is that they are suffering in the first place.

Also, saying that God is not the [i]direct[/i] cause would be silly. Someone who lights up the fuse of a bomb with full knowledge that it will set up the bomb, is the cause of the following explosion and not just the burning fuse.
[right][snapback]843293[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

with that logic, we never really take responsibility for our own actions. The fact that you had no human workers, IS your fault and yours alone because you were in charge of building it. It was through your knowledge or lack of, that choose no human workers, thus leading them to suffer greatly. The fact that you had the CHOICE and the responsibilty of hiring human workers or not is entirely your fault and thus would cause you to be fired from your job and probably sued.

We must also remember free will, and original sin all play a part in suffering and remember that God is good and love. He cannot contradict himself.

The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis and Making Sense out of suffering by Peter Kreeft are good reads.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jan 2 2006, 10:09 AM'][quote name='JeffCR07']So, while we can say that "God causes suffering" in some sense, we do so improperly, since we are not speaking with reference to the primary meaning of the phrase, but rather, only with reference to secondary agency.[/quote]

I disagree. Since God was the first and only cause, everything that happened after happened because of God. It's like if I were to design and build a zoo (with no human workers) in which all the animals later ended up suffering greatly. That would be a bad zoo and I would get the blame for screwing up the design. People wouldn't be saying "well, she wasn't expected to end their suffering, so it's not her fault they are still suffering", even if it was true. The point is that they are suffering in the first place.

Also, saying that God is not the [i]direct[/i] cause would be silly. Someone who lights up the fuse of a bomb with full knowledge that it will set up the bomb, is the cause of the following explosion and not just the burning fuse.
[right][snapback]843293[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The objection above clearly does not take into account free will. Free will is a necessary prerequisite of loving God. Both humans and angels were created to enter into a communion of love with God, therefore both needed free will. Free will includes the radical possibility of sin. Suffering is the result of sin.

Therefore, if God had created a world in which suffering was impossible, it would necessarily be a world in which sin was impossible. If it was a world in which sin was impossible, it would necessarily be a wold in which love was impossible.

Thus, the possibility of suffering is tied at least in some way to the possibility of love.

This is [i]not[/i] like lighting a fuse, because, unlike the fuse, free will has many possible outcomes, and need not of necessity lead to sin and suffering.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='jmjtina']with that logic, we never really take responsibility for our own actions.[/quote]

Sure we do. And that's what I was arguing for. Are you saying that the animals caused their own suffering?

I'm just saying that some of the suffering is because of God and some of it because of people. It seems to me God doesn't take responsibility for the suffering he's causing.


[quote name='jmjtina']The fact that you had no human workers, IS your fault and yours alone because you were in charge of building it. It was through your knowledge or lack of, that choose no human workers, thus leading them to suffer greatly.[/quote]

Well, the suffering wasn't caused directly by lack of humans in there. The suffering was caused by bad design. But if you want to say that's the same thing, then fine.

But anyway, I actually agree with you here. I screwed up the design. And so did God.

[quote name='JeffCR07']The objection above clearly does not take into account free will.[/quote]

It did. Only the free will of me (=God) caused the suffering.

[quote name='JeffCR07']Suffering is the result of sin.[/quote]

Except in cases in which no sin occurred, but suffering did.

[quote name='JeffCR07']Therefore, if God had created a world in which suffering was impossible, it would necessarily be a world in which sin was impossible.[/quote]

God could have created a world in which suffering was caused only by sin. This is not the world in which we live. We live in a world in which suffering is often (but not always) caused randomly by things without intention and free-will.