would you say most priests actually believe in god?

8kczg9v0swrydm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Just to explore one particular example scenario - I'm not looking for 'perfection' or the bliss of paradise. I'm just suggesting that a situation where parents watch their children dying of cancer over a couple of years is so far from perfection, so far from anything vaguely understandable - that it suggests that there is no design intention behind creation.

2) Can you clarify if you think childhood cancer is self-inflicted?

3) I don't really get your point about 'enough meditation for a lifetime', but I suppose the obvious question would be why a benevolent God allowed 'suffering' scenarios to evolve?

4) What does this 'offer it up' actually mean? How does the suffering of one person help another person in any way?

Some good questions here.

The point I am trying to get across is that suffering remains a mystery - a good God allows it to exist and when He became incarnate, He embraced it to the ultimate extent.

God could allow suffering for many reasons, with no one reason fitting all. For example, many traditions recognise that a time of suffering can be a time of great learning - 'suffering' being a teacher of wisdom. If we met a Holocaust survivor, we would be sure to hang on to their every word - they have been through hell and you can bet they have something important to say.

Perhaps suffering can be the only way to save someone, to make them see sense. There is a line in the Bible that talks about 'sowing in tears, but reaping in joy'. People are extremely slow to learn, to do good, if they do not want to. From a Christian perspective, Judas followed Jesus for three years. He heard the message and he saw the miracles, yet he still chose to betray Christ - 'The heart is more devious than any other thing, perverse too: who can pierce its secrets?' (Jeremiah 17:9). Sometimes only suffering can turn us from our ways.

Offering up your suffering is a Christian concept (Redemptive Suffering). My understanding of it is that since Christ willingly atoned for us with His suffering and death, we can unite our sufferings with His and make them efficacious (able to intercede for another person). In a way, our sufferings willingly offered to God cry out before Him with a seriousness that prayers alone might not have. Here is a good article on the concept:

https://catholicexchange.com/what-is-redemptive-suffering

Going back to the child dying of cancer, I am sure that such situations are absolutely heart wrenching for the parents and must test their faith to the limit. But there is a reason for God allowing such children's suffering, just as He allowed His only son to suffer. Only faith can tell us that God can write straight with crooked lines and He can bring some great good from such a situation.

For people without faith, where this life is the end and there is no God, a logical reaction would be despair.

John Hutton

Aquinas deals well with most of these questions I think.

Of course, the church teaches that our life here in earth is only a small, short part of our "everlasting life", I think happenings in earth should be looked at within that context.

Randy Archer

Most ? God no. If Thomas or Patrick weren’t going to get the land but were intelligent , it was a handy gig and job for life

Considering how many acted so unchristian and had little regard for peasants , especially peasants who failed to hand over a pound or a schilling during the collection at mass , how could they really believe in god ?

For those who have family from rural Ireland, you’d be hard press to not have family relations from at least the grand parents era who either joined the priest hood, brotherhood or nuns (they were evil and snobby as hell, each one of them, bar maybe 10 , should suffering sheer pain on their death bed )

AndrewJRenko

Nora Mushy Polygamist wrote: »

Some good questions here.

The point I am trying to get across is that suffering remains a mystery - a good God allows it to exist and when He became incarnate, He embraced it to the ultimate extent.

God could allow suffering for many reasons, with no one reason fitting all. For example, many traditions recognise that a time of suffering can be a time of great learning - 'suffering' being a teacher of wisdom. If we met a Holocaust survivor, we would be sure to hang on to their every word - they have been through hell and you can bet they have something important to say.

Perhaps suffering can be the only way to save someone, to make them see sense. There is a line in the Bible that talks about 'sowing in tears, but reaping in joy'. People are extremely slow to learn, to do good, if they do not want to. From a Christian perspective, Judas followed Jesus for three years. He heard the message and he saw the miracles, yet he still chose to betray Christ - 'The heart is more devious than any other thing, perverse too: who can pierce its secrets?' (Jeremiah 17:9). Sometimes only suffering can turn us from our ways.

Offering up your suffering is a Christian concept (Redemptive Suffering). My understanding of it is that since Christ willingly atoned for us with His suffering and death, we can unite our sufferings with His and make them efficacious (able to intercede for another person). In a way, our sufferings willingly offered to God cry out before Him with a seriousness that prayers alone might not have. Here is a good article on the concept:

https://catholicexchange.com/what-is-redemptive-suffering

Going back to the child dying of cancer, I am sure that such situations are absolutely heart wrenching for the parents and must test their faith to the limit. But there is a reason for God allowing such children's suffering, just as He allowed His only son to suffer. Only faith can tell us that God can write straight with crooked lines and He can bring some great good from such a situation.

For people without faith, where this life is the end and there is no God, a logical reaction would be despair.

I'm struggling to remain respectful here. Two of the theories that you've put forward are completely abhorrent to any independent observer.

The idea that having your child die of cancer in horrific pain over a couple of years is some kind of 'learning and development opportunity' is frankly obscene. Were these bad parents in the first place that need to be taught a lesson? Was there no other more reasonable teaching method, like a book or a documentary perhaps?

Also, the idea of suffering as a route to interceding is bizarre. Does the benevolent god only listen to those who are suffering when deciding which of these desperate situations (which he created or at best, allowed to be created) he wants to intercede in?

Saying 'oh, it's all a mystery and you wouldn't understand' is like the magician saying 'oh it's magic that I pulled a rabbit out of my sleeve'.

tayto lover

I see the old “ it’s a mystery” rubbish is still very popular to get around anything awkward.
How can the suffering of an innocent child turn someone else from their ways?
Why should that child have to suffer such pain to turn a stranger from their ways?
This is such rubbish.

the purple tin

Wouldn't a belief in God not be mandatory if you were thinking of taking the cloth? Why else would you do it?
Well I suppose in the old days some young lads might have been railroaded into it by Mammies who thought it would be the be-all and end-all to have a priest in the family.

beveragelady

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm struggling to remain respectful here. Two of the theories that you've put forward are completely abhorrent to any independent observer.

The idea that having your child die of cancer in horrific pain over a couple of years is some kind of 'learning and development opportunity' is frankly obscene. Were these bad parents in the first place that need to be taught a lesson? Was there no other more reasonable teaching method, like a book or a documentary perhaps?

Also, the idea of suffering as a route to interceding is bizarre. Does the benevolent god only listen to those who are suffering when deciding which of these desperate situations (which he created or at best, allowed to be created) he wants to intercede in?

Saying 'oh, it's all a mystery and you wouldn't understand' is like the magician saying 'oh it's magic that I pulled a rabbit out of my sleeve'.

The fact is that anybody, real or imaginary, sacred or profane, that causes or allows unnecessary suffering is not on the side of the good guys. Telling us that there is a mysterious cause and effect that means it's all actually grand is dogmatic denial of human experience.
Anybody, never mind an omnipotent being, would do absolutely anything to stop the suffering. The can't compute that their god is unbothered by it so they complicate things with 'theology' and ipseditixitisms rather than admit that it's all nonsense.

John Hutton

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm struggling to remain respectful here. Two of the theories that you've put forward are completely abhorrent to any independent observer.

The idea that having your child die of cancer in horrific pain over a couple of years is some kind of 'learning and development opportunity' is frankly obscene. Were these bad parents in the first place that need to be taught a lesson? Was there no other more reasonable teaching method, like a book or a documentary perhaps?

Also, the idea of suffering as a route to interceding is bizarre. Does the benevolent god only listen to those who are suffering when deciding which of these desperate situations (which he created or at best, allowed to be created) he wants to intercede in?

Saying 'oh, it's all a mystery and you wouldn't understand' is like the magician saying 'oh it's magic that I pulled a rabbit out of my sleeve'.

You are viewing things through a prism which says that our earthly death is the end of everything. Of course there is no possible explanation for a God allowing suffering in this context.



You can't attack part of a belief by saying that God doesn't exist because evil or suffering exists and also ignore or discount the integral, accompanying argument that Christianity makes about everlasting life. God and the hereafter come together.

beveragelady

John Hutton wrote: »

You can't attack part of a belief by saying that God doesn't exist because evil or suffering exists and also ignore or discount the integral, accompanying argument that Christianity makes about everlasting life. God and the hereafter come together.

This makes no sense whatsoever.
God is real because there's an afterlife that god created that you only believe in if you believe in god...
Would it blow your mind if I suggested that there's no afterlife?

John Hutton

beveragelady wrote: »

This makes no sense whatsoever.
God is real because there's an afterlife that god created that you only believe in if you believe in god...
Would it blow your mind if I suggested that there's no afterlife?

Try reading what I wrote again.

beveragelady

John Hutton wrote: »

Try reading what I wrote again.

Try explaining it more clearly.

Upforthematch

tayto lover wrote: »

I see the old “ it’s a mystery” rubbish is still very popular to get around anything awkward.
How can the suffering of an innocent child turn someone else from their ways?
Why should that child have to suffer such pain to turn a stranger from their ways?
This is such rubbish.

Yeah, I don't think Christians explain this well.

If you wrote the following

How can the suffering of an innocent Jesus turn someone else from their ways?
Why should Jesus have to suffer such pain to turn a stranger from their ways?

Here Christians would talk about Jesus being a scapegoat, victim of oppression and saving humanity, but when you write

How can the suffering of an innocent child turn someone else from their ways?
Why should that child have to suffer such pain to turn a stranger from their ways?

It doesn't hang together with the concept of a loving God, right?

I think Christians need to point out that they believe there is any sort of suffering in the world because there is evil in the world and be more upfront about the fact they believe that humanity has been condemned by God. Because of this banishment from God there is lots of suffering and total unfairness. Condemned to be free as Sartre would put it.

So where's the room here for a loving God? I'll let someone else answer that question but Christians put a lot of weight on their belief that Jesus, who they believe is God, suffered for humanity. It's sort of the whole point of Christianity. This idea that God suffered is totally offensive to Jews or Muslims.

tayto lover

But what kind of a loving God who has everything, knows everything and is above everything would want anyone to suffer?
It would be like me going out and kicking a dog because a bird crapped on me.
I would be the wrong one.
I just don’t get it.

AndrewJRenko

John Hutton wrote: »

You are viewing things through a prism which says that our earthly death is the end of everything. Of course there is no possible explanation for a God allowing suffering in this context.



You can't attack part of a belief by saying that God doesn't exist because evil or suffering exists and also ignore or discount the integral, accompanying argument that Christianity makes about everlasting life. God and the hereafter come together.

I'm really not attacking anything. I'm not telling anyone what to do or not do, or what to believe or not believe.

In all honesty, I'm ignoring the eternal life bit, because it is a fantasy.

If it hadn't been inculcated in you from the age of four, and someone came along to you as an adult with this great story about eternal life, do you think that you'd actually believe them?

Upforthematch

tayto lover wrote: »

But what kind of a loving God who has everything, knows everything and is above everything would want anyone to suffer?
It would be like me going out and kicking a dog because a bird crapped on me.
I would be the wrong one.
I just don’t get it.

I dont think Christians believe that God wants anyone to suffer. If anything, the story of Jesus is about God's solidarity with those who suffer at age 3, 33 or 93. I don't think Christians believe in Karma so they don't make the distinction between 'fair' and 'unfair' suffering. As far as Christians are concerned all suffering on earth is awful and is a direct result of humanity's separation from God. Maybe some expert Christians can advise more?

Upforthematch

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

In all honesty, I'm ignoring the eternal life bit, because it is a fantasy.

If it hadn't been inculcated in you from the age of four, and someone came along to you as an adult with this great story about eternal life, do you think that you'd actually believe them?

That's an interesting thought experiment. Well most people agree that a man called Jesus existed so you have a practical example. 95% plus of the population didn't believe him at the time. Possibly more did follow him for a while but then he said some stuff about them eating his flesh and drinking his blood and that turned a lot of people off it appears.

I suppose i'd be part of the 95%, why should I be any different? But if it was a load of nonsense, it was some trick to keep that message going (in a pretty much peaceful way) to today with 1 billion plus followers!

1990sman

knock, persist in knocking and the door will be answered.

John Hutton

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm really not attacking anything. I'm not telling anyone what to do or not do, or what to believe or not believe.

In all honesty, I'm ignoring the eternal life bit, because it is a fantasy.

If it hadn't been inculcated in you from the age of four, and someone came along to you as an adult with this great story about eternal life, do you think that you'd actually believe them?

The apostles and St Patrick seem to have been able to convince adults

Seriously though, the evidence shows us that adults convert or join religions all the time.

I don't want to get into my personal situation, but I was agnostic bordering on atheist for many years.

8kczg9v0swrydm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm struggling to remain respectful here. Two of the theories that you've put forward are completely abhorrent to any independent observer.

The idea that having your child die of cancer in horrific pain over a couple of years is some kind of 'learning and development opportunity' is frankly obscene. Were these bad parents in the first place that need to be taught a lesson? Was there no other more reasonable teaching method, like a book or a documentary perhaps?

Also, the idea of suffering as a route to interceding is bizarre. Does the benevolent god only listen to those who are suffering when deciding which of these desperate situations (which he created or at best, allowed to be created) he wants to intercede in?

Saying 'oh, it's all a mystery and you wouldn't understand' is like the magician saying 'oh it's magic that I pulled a rabbit out of my sleeve'.

I went to great pains in my last post to point out that not all of the potential reasons for suffering will fit every scenario. A small child dying from cancer in not there on a 'learning experience', I have not said that.

Suffering will remain a mystery because, as it stands, we cannot fully account for all aspects of it. The universe is a mystery. Every individual human being is a mystery (why do we exist and not some alternate version of ourselves?). Many a time I think that the fact that I have any friends is a mystery. My point is that 'mystery' is not just used as an answer to stop peasants asking too many questions. We do have genuine mysteries.

To highlight once more: God allows suffering, as He is under no obligation to intervene every time we step on a piece of lego. He can use our suffering to bring out good, in ways known to Himself. In my previous post I have tried to illustrate some of the ways this good might come about. Offering our suffering as intercession is one more way in which God prevents our suffering from being useless, desperate and hopeless.

Hoping to eliminate all suffering in this life is foolish. Of course, we should try to help our fellow man, but all the while keeping in mind that this world is a 'vale of tears', whether we like it or not. Striving for utopias, like Communism, ultimately only led to the deaths of 100s of millions of people.

tayto lover

1990sman wrote: »

knock, persist in knocking and the door will be answered.

Only if there’s someone there.