would you say most priests actually believe in god?

John Hutton · 25-07-2020 10:32pm

Man with broke phone wrote: »

Is this a serious question?

Child abuse. Hiding sexual predators. Mother baby homes. Forced adoptions. Refusing contraception advise in Africa. Catholicism. Organised religion. Genocidal history. Auld wans that smell of piss thinking they can do what they want because they help you have a cup of tea.
Worrying about wandering into a conspiracy and being pressured into keeping shtum.
Taking money from lonely or bereaved people for prayers or company or the souls of the dead and using it to pay for priests to go to poor countries and carry out the same crimes that they carried out here when we were idiots. Sitting there telling people that it was all in the past while they molest and force adoption in most of south america and anywhere in Africa that they can get away with.

Like the wages and perks are attractive but youd have to have a certain mindset going into it.

My parish priest mustn't sleep at all to have time to do all that.

If you are making a moral judgement on the church based on its deeds you must take into account all deeds, both good and bad.

If you were to tott them all up in a ledger, even just in Ireland, from the 5th century to today there would be a lot of good, and a lot of bad but I feel the good would outweigh the bad.

Personally I think the worth or truth of a religion cannot be be judged solely on the basis of good deeds, or misdeeds, of it's adherents. For instance, great evils have been carried out by democratic politicians or institutions (many of which are the same as those terrible things the church did, indeed they were hand in glove at times) but this does not mean that democracy is itself bad.

Similarly, I would think a man very foolish if he considered a religion good or true on the basis of earthly good deeds.

For instance, let's say that tomorrow a new religion arises where they believe that the earth is flat and the moon is God. They express their faith through a divine service which constitutes of feeding and housing the homeless. Would you believe that the message they preach is true or good because they have only done good deeds? Of course not. So it must also follow that a religion, concept, idea etc. cannot be untrue or bad merely on the basis of the misdeeds of adherents. (This is especially the case when the majority of these misdeeds and contrary to the idea and message that they preach!)

py2006 · 25-07-2020 10:33pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

There is about a billion catholics in the world so don't think its going away anytime soon.

If you think the number is that high because they are all believers you are wrong.

There is a reason baptism is done on young babies and not attempted when they are critical thinking and reasonably educated 18+ year olds.

If the later was the case you would see that number drop drastically

John Hutton · 25-07-2020 10:38pm

py2006 wrote: »

If you think the number is that high because they are all believers you are wrong.

There is a reason baptism is done on young babies and not attempted when they are critical thinking and reasonably educated 18+ year olds.

If the later was the case you would see that number drop drastically

Adults are baptised into the Catholic church all the time.

And look at protestantism, adults are baptised and "born again" all the time.

Man with broke phone · 25-07-2020 10:48pm

John Hutton wrote: »

My parish priest mustn't sleep at all to have time to do all that.

If you are making a moral judgement on the church based on its deeds you must take into account all deeds, both good and bad.

If you were to tott them all up in a ledger, even just in Ireland, from the 5th century to today there would be a lot of good, and a lot of bad but I feel the good would outweigh the bad.

Personally I think the worth or truth of a religion cannot be be judged solely on the basis of good deeds, or misdeeds, of it's adherents. For instance, great evils have been carried out by democratic politicians or institutions (many of which are the same as those terrible things the church did, indeed they were hand in glove at times) but this does not mean that democracy is itself bad.

Similarly, I would think a man very foolish if he considered a religion good or true on the basis of earthly good deeds.

For instance, let's say that tomorrow a new religion arises where they believe that the earth is flat and the moon is God. They express their faith through a divine service which constitutes of feeding and housing the homeless. Would you believe that the message they preach is true or good because they have only done good deeds? Of course not. So it must also follow that a religion, concept, idea etc. cannot be untrue or bad merely on the basis of the misdeeds of adherents. (This is especially the case when the majority of these misdeeds and contrary to the idea and message that they preach!)

You dont seem to have the smarts to see the bigger picture or are an apologist. They mostly help people at their lowest because that's where it's easy to in doctrine them. To brainwash them. They can go to a poor village, make them catholic then give them some soup for a few years, a generation or two later the community is earning and then they get the collection plate out. They are in the generations game. If they needed money now they would just sell a painting or one of the million priceless objects or properties they have.

Might pressure a few lads to set up pool league or cake sale, might let the odd fella that wants to do good set up a charity but he is just converting lads. Drug addiction centres, homeless kitchens, take free food and pass it around to hungry people while telling them about the good lord. Just enough to show rich guilty people to donate money. Maybe these drug addicts would donate money every week if they got clean and got jobs.

They own or run nearly all the schools and hospitals in the country. The government pays for this not them. Imagine they put catholic kids in first regardless of other reasons. They dont do this to help the Catholics. They dont do this because they are racist. They do this because during this bumpy time people will keep baptising their children, hoping that when it's all over it will be just a load of Catholics who want to keep their traditions and all these abuses will be a distant memory and they can just get on with the molesting and abusing.

Generation game. Going to church now, and keeping your Catholicism while you know this is going on let's them play the generation game.

anplaya27 · 25-07-2020 10:51pm

Man with broke phone wrote: »

Is this a serious question?

Child abuse. Hiding sexual predators. Mother baby homes. Forced adoptions. Refusing contraception advise in Africa. Catholicism. Organised religion. Genocidal history. Auld wans that smell of piss thinking they can do what they want because they help you have a cup of tea.
Worrying about wandering into a conspiracy and being pressured into keeping shtum.
Taking money from lonely or bereaved people for prayers or company or the souls of the dead and using it to pay for priests to go to poor countries and carry out the same crimes that they carried out here when we were idiots. Sitting there telling people that it was all in the past while they molest and force adoption in most of south america and anywhere in Africa that they can get away with.

Like the wages and perks are attractive but youd have to have a certain mindset going into it.

Not forgetting oralism ( linguistic suppression of Irish Sign Language, which is recognised as a native language of Ireland in legislation now) and the segregation of the Deaf.

Man with broke phone · 25-07-2020 10:54pm

I think if any priest genuinely believed in god they would distance themselves from the catholic church.

John Hutton · 25-07-2020 10:55pm

Man with broke phone wrote: »

You dont seem to have the smarts to see the bigger picture or are an apologist. They mostly help people at their lowest because that's where it's easy to in doctrine them. To brainwash them. They can go to a poor village, make them catholic then give them some soup for a few years, a generation or two later the community is earning and then they get the collection plate out. They are in the generations game. If they needed money now they would just sell a painting or one of the million priceless objects or properties they have.

Might pressure a few lads to set up pool league or cake sale, might let the odd fella that wants to do good set up a charity but he is just converting lads. Drug addiction centres, homeless kitchens, take free food and pass it around to hungry people while telling them about the good lord. Just enough to show rich guilty people to donate money. Maybe these drug addicts would donate money every week if they got clean and got jobs.

They own or run nearly all the schools and hospitals in the country. The government pays for this not them. Imagine they put catholic kids in first regardless of other reasons. They dont do this to help the Catholics. They dont do this because they are racist. They do this because during this bumpy time people will keep baptising their children, hoping that when it's all over it will be just a load of Catholics who want to keep their traditions and all these abuses will be a distant memory and they can just get on with the molesting and abusing.

Generation game. Going to church now, and keeping your Catholicism while you know this is going on let's them play the generation game.

Giving out Soup? That's the Protestants lad.

Not sure if there is any point in engaging with that level of cynicism....

Man with broke phone · 25-07-2020 10:58pm

John Hutton wrote: »

Giving out Soup? That's the Protestants lad.

Not sure if there is any point in engaging with that level of cynicism....

Jesus lad you are either very innocent or very , ah never mind.

Only the protestants have soup in India or Chile or California. Starving people only accept soup if a protestant is serving it apparently. No self respecting catholic would dare drink a bowl of it.

py2006 · 25-07-2020 11:06pm

Nora Mushy Polygamist wrote: »

It is also worth mentioning that ideas of equality, dignity, care and support for the weak, and a systematic renunciation of self for others are essentially Christian.

Interesting post.

However, not sure about the last part quoted here.

py2006 · 25-07-2020 11:20pm

John Hutton wrote: »

Adults are baptised into the Catholic church all the time.

And look at protestantism, adults are baptised and "born again" all the time.

Yea, its sooooooo common :rolleyes:

jaxxx · 25-07-2020 11:22pm

John Hutton wrote: »

My parish priest mustn't sleep at all to have time to do all that.

If you are making a moral judgement on the church based on its deeds you must take into account all deeds, both good and bad.

If you were to tott them all up in a ledger, even just in Ireland, from the 5th century to today there would be a lot of good, and a lot of bad but I feel the good would outweigh the bad.

Personally I think the worth or truth of a religion cannot be be judged solely on the basis of good deeds, or misdeeds, of it's adherents. For instance, great evils have been carried out by democratic politicians or institutions (many of which are the same as those terrible things the church did, indeed they were hand in glove at times) but this does not mean that democracy is itself bad.

Similarly, I would think a man very foolish if he considered a religion good or true on the basis of earthly good deeds.

For instance, let's say that tomorrow a new religion arises where they believe that the earth is flat and the moon is God. They express their faith through a divine service which constitutes of feeding and housing the homeless. Would you believe that the message they preach is true or good because they have only done good deeds? Of course not. So it must also follow that a religion, concept, idea etc. cannot be untrue or bad merely on the basis of the misdeeds of adherents. (This is especially the case when the majority of these misdeeds and contrary to the idea and message that they preach!)

In that case, the good old Catholic Church is flooded with red ink on its ledger.

py2006 · 25-07-2020 11:27pm

Its only become acceptable in Ireland for victims of the church to speak out in the last 30 years or so. I am sure many have chosen to stay silent.

Religion and the catholic church is a disgusting, corrupt and deeply depraved organisation. This particular god has a lot to answer for.

Can you imagine what they got away with throughout the centuries?

John Hutton · 25-07-2020 11:32pm

jaxxx wrote: »

In that case, the good old Catholic Church is flooded with red ink on its ledger.

Did you read past that particular sentence?

jaxxx · 25-07-2020 11:36pm

John Hutton wrote: »

Did you read past that particular sentence?

Yeah I did, and you said the good would outweigh the bad, that its good deeds are plentiful, etc. It's not even remotely close. Hence why I said "flooded with red ink " (referencing the millions whose bloodshed came directly by the hands of your good old church). That is a book that can never be balanced.

John Hutton · 25-07-2020 11:40pm

jaxxx wrote: »

Yeah I did, and you said the good would outweigh the bad, that its good deeds are plentiful, etc. It's not even remotely close. Hence why I flooded with red ink (referencing the millions whose deaths came directly by the hands of your good old church). That is a book that can never be balanced.

Yes, I said I thought it would, but it's the bit I wrote after that which I'd draw your attention to...

jaxxx · 25-07-2020 11:42pm

John Hutton wrote: »

Yes, I said I thought it would, but it's the bit I wrote after that which I'd draw your attention to...

Yes, your new religion set up drivel. I think you misplaced the word 'religion' with 'cult. Fine example of that being Scientology.

John Hutton · 25-07-2020 11:49pm

jaxxx wrote: »

Yes, your new religion set up drivel. I think you misplaced the word 'religion' with 'cult. Fine example of that being Scientology.

Drivel is a bit harsh.

Ok, use the word cult then if that makes you feel better.

The point is that good deeds don't make a cult, religion, idea or concept true or good by themselves. I don't think this is a controversial point.

py2006 · 25-07-2020 11:49pm

jaxxx wrote: »

Yes, your new religion set up drivel. I think you misplaced the word 'religion' with 'cult. Fine example of that being Scientology.

Cult is defined as a new religious movement.

The difference between Catholicism and say Scientology is time

Man with broke phone · 25-07-2020 11:57pm

John Hutton wrote: »

Drivel is a bit harsh.

Ok, use the word cult then if that makes you feel better.

The point is that good deeds don't make a cult, religion, idea or concept true or good by themselves. I don't think this is a controversial point.

Why does a man have to become a priest to do good deeds. Surely the man doesnt become good by wearing a priest uniform or studying about god making a fool of abraham. Why does he need to not marry and report to an evil organisation?
And leave all his earthly belongings to the evil organisation when he dies.

John Hutton · 26-07-2020 12:19am

Man with broke phone wrote: »

Why does a man have to become a priest to do good deeds. Surely the man doesnt become good by wearing a priest uniform or studying about god making a fool of abraham. Why does he need to not marry and report to an evil organisation?
And leave all his early belongings to the evil organisation when he dies.

?

I never said any of the above. (Btw priests don't have to leave all their belongings to the church when they die).

You have missed my point which at a basic level is this: A priest doing good deeds does not make, in and of itself, any religion true or good. I'm sure you agree with this. Fr Peter McVerry for instance, does what is nigh on universally regarded as good work. This does not, by itself, make his religion true or good, even if he does it in the name of the religion.

Therefore, a priest being a pedophile (which incidentally is contrary to the stated position and tenants of his religion) does not have any bearing on the truth of the religion itself.

So, let us suppose that it were possible to put every good and bad deed an adherent to a religion or belief (say, democracy) did in a ledger. Let us suppose that at the final reckoning that the bad outweighed the good by one entry, or vice versa. Is the worth and truth of the belief or idea to be weighed and (solely) decided upon in such a way?

I say it shouldn't be, but rather the ideas, beliefs etc, need to be examined and judged on their own merits in a philosophical and, in this case, theological manner.

We then arrive at a position where it is clear that whatever sins or good deeds are committed by priests have ZERO bearing on whether God (Trinitarian or otherwise), heaven, hell, purgatory, Jesus, the ressurextion, etc. etc. exists.

Man with broke phone · 26-07-2020 12:23am

So you dont believe in the criminal justice system you believe god will judge us all at the end and you believe your priest friends who you know enough to know their wages are of this opinion too.

So if a peado molests 15 times but gives 28 soups to homeless people he should be fairly ok in your opinion. Just leave him to God judgement. Would you let him mind your kids happy in the knowledge that if he molests them he might have to organise a charity 5 k to balance his deal with st Peter?

John Hutton · 26-07-2020 12:34am

Man with broke phone wrote: »

So you dont believe in the criminal justice system you believe god will judge us all at the end and you believe your priest friends who you know enough to know their wages are of this opinion too.

So if a peado molests 15 times but gives 28 soups to homeless people he should be fairly ok in your opinion. Just leave him to God judgement. Would you let him mind your kids happy in the knowledge that if he molests them he might have to organise a charity 5 k to balance his deal with st Peter?

I'm not saying any of that at all, you need to read my posts again.

Galwayguy35 · 26-07-2020 9:42am

py2006 wrote: »

If you think the number is that high because they are all believers you are wrong.

There is a reason baptism is done on young babies and not attempted when they are critical thinking and reasonably educated 18+ year olds.

If the later was the case you would see that number drop drastically

As I said before its declining in Europe but is very strong in Africa, Asia and South America and those people would be committed Catholics so no I'm not wrong.

AndrewJRenko · 26-07-2020 12:39pm

John Hutton wrote: »

You are missing the point, life on earth is not supposed to be perfect. Your point is based on the foundation that our life here is all there is.

I'm not suggesting that we're expecting perfection. But if our world and our humanity is created by an all-powerful, benevolent god, why would he build childhood cancer into that plan - where good, decent parents spend a few years seeing their most precious child dying in considerable pain and discomfort in front of their eyes.

Why would any God make that torture a part of their plan?

Church on Tuesday · 26-07-2020 1:49pm

mikemac2 wrote: »

Dealing with couples who never go to Mass and have nothing to do with the parish but if you don’t become available to their every request you get criticized

Plenty of threads on boards from bridezillas who wanted a small pretty Church in rural County Wicklow and talk about the priest as if they are the hired help.

Hell Joe Duffy on the radio had a bridezilla arrange for their wedding coordinator to put potted trees into the Church and then blasted the priest who had the nerve to question her

Priest are low paid and deal with the public and the public are idiots

If I had to deal with that sort, I'd be losing faith in God pretty quickly.

happyoutscan · 26-07-2020 7:37pm

John Hutton wrote: »

Do any of you know actually know any priests?

Or just ignorantly speculating?

I do, and I don't know how they could do it if they don't believe, or never believed.

It's a very tough life. It's ain't just saying Mass for a half hour on a Sunday.

Burials, weddings, confessions, counselling, school boards, visiting the sick and dying, administration of a parish(financial and just plain organisation, communions etc), spiritual direction, dealing with headcases moaning because the priest changed a mass time, multiple masses everyday sometimes over 2 parishes, loneliness (for some, more now because in the past priests didn't live alone), last rites to people splattered on a road at 3am, etc. etc. It goes on and on. Plus a significant proportion of society thinking you might be a pedo, and a vocal minority loathing you.

All for 24k a year.

They wouldn't do it if they didn't believe in God.

I know two personally who don't believe. One never did, the other gradually. Both have no intentions of leaving as they have nothing else to fall back on.

26-07-2020 7:46pm

happyoutscan wrote: »

I know two personally who don't believe. One never did, the other gradually. Both have no intentions of leaving as they have nothing else to fall back on.

Why did he go in?

I know 3 priests. Relatives through marriage and my father in law trained to be a priest but bailed before the end, exams or oath or whatever the final step is.

Father in law is a believer and the one relative I am chatty with certainly believes. He's opus dei and fairly into it but no so much that he constantly tells me I'm going to hell or anything.

I do wonder how many were like the father in law, from a poor background and this was the only way they could live and get an education. He admits himself that he probable would have had to find work at 13 because his father was dead and they were dirt poor. He's very old by the way so this is back in the 1930s.

I do admire them though for their faith. I was raised a Catholic but just can't believe in an all loving God when you see the **** going on all around us.

gary550 · 26-07-2020 7:54pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

As I said before its declining in Europe but is very strong in Africa, Asia and South America and those people would be committed Catholics so no I'm not wrong.

Yeah, I would imagine that has to do with the amount of people living in dire poverty in them regions who probably have no other hope for betterment of their life than praying to their invisible friend. What have they to lose?

I would also imagine that the church (and religion as a whole) know that their chances of belief among people with less options in life is exponentially higher than than in folk like you'd find in europe and the like.

I would predict that as them countries develop you will see the same pattern of abuse unfolding (or being revealed) as it did here.....

I remember about 5-6 years ago watching a documentary on drug addicts in southern Russia who all are frazzled in the brain, every second building in the town is some do gooder american mission (read cult) who train up the most vulnerable in society to believe their dribble.

8kczg9v0swrydm · 30-07-2020 9:59pm

Man with broke phone wrote: »

You dont seem to have the smarts to see the bigger picture or are an apologist. They mostly help people at their lowest because that's where it's easy to in doctrine them. To brainwash them. They can go to a poor village, make them catholic then give them some soup for a few years, a generation or two later the community is earning and then they get the collection plate out. They are in the generations game. If they needed money now they would just sell a painting or one of the million priceless objects or properties they have.

Might pressure a few lads to set up pool league or cake sale, might let the odd fella that wants to do good set up a charity but he is just converting lads. Drug addiction centres, homeless kitchens, take free food and pass it around to hungry people while telling them about the good lord. Just enough to show rich guilty people to donate money. Maybe these drug addicts would donate money every week if they got clean and got jobs.

They own or run nearly all the schools and hospitals in the country. The government pays for this not them. Imagine they put catholic kids in first regardless of other reasons. They dont do this to help the Catholics. They dont do this because they are racist. They do this because during this bumpy time people will keep baptising their children, hoping that when it's all over it will be just a load of Catholics who want to keep their traditions and all these abuses will be a distant memory and they can just get on with the molesting and abusing.

Generation game. Going to church now, and keeping your Catholicism while you know this is going on let's them play the generation game.

If the Catholic Church was all about increasing its adherents to bring in more money, then they are clearly doing it wrong. All the trouble, the celibacy, the 7 years of rigorous theological and philosophical study, the loneliness and isolation, the increasingly hostile culture, just to provide it's priests with an existence which barely qualifies as middle class (if even)?

I'm sure it has been said in this thread already, but it is going to be nigh impossible to understand a priest without having some faith in Christ. The priest understands that we cannot save ourselves, only Christ can do that. Believing this, he has enough charity for his fellow human beings to dedicate his life to tell them about Christ, securing their happiness in this life and the next.

Some here mentioned the problem of suffering. True, it is a mystery, but Christianity does offer a few insights on it:

1) Our world is not perfect. Nowhere in the Bible does it say this. There was a time of bliss upon the earth where humans were immortal. However, something went wrong very quickly - Christian (as well as Jewish) theology terms it 'original sin'. The fruit tree is a metaphor, but whatever happened, this event messed up not only humans, but also the world. We inhabit a world where things are not quite as they were supposed to be. For example, we can all notice that we have a natural inclination to selfishness, mistrust, laziness, greed, anger etc. This was not always so.

2) Much of our suffering is self inflicted. Many people fall victim to their own version of the proverbial 'monkey trap', where the monkey puts it's hand into a small hole to retrieve fruit, but is unable to remove it's hand because it's fist clutching the fruit is too big. People ruin their lives going after what they shouldn't.

3) Christ didn't come to take away suffering. Instead He, being God, suffered himself. This is enough meditation for a lifetime.

4) We can offer up our suffering for other people. Love speaks a language and that language is, and always will be, sacrifice.

AndrewJRenko · 30-07-2020 10:17pm

Nora Mushy Polygamist wrote: »

1) Our world is not perfect. Nowhere in the Bible does it say this. There was a time of bliss upon the earth where humans were immortal. However, something went wrong very quickly - Christian (as well as Jewish) theology terms it 'original sin'. The fruit tree is a metaphor, but whatever happened, this event messed up not only humans, but also the world. We inhabit a world where things are not quite as they were supposed to be. For example, we can all notice that we have a natural inclination to selfishness, mistrust, laziness, greed, anger etc. This was not always so.

2) Much of our suffering is self inflicted. Many people fall victim to their own version of the proverbial 'monkey trap', where the monkey puts it's hand into a small hole to retrieve fruit, but is unable to remove it's hand because it's fist clutching the fruit is too big. People ruin their lives going after what they shouldn't.

3) Christ didn't come to take away suffering. Instead He, being God, suffered himself. This is enough meditation for a lifetime.

4) We can offer up our suffering for other people. Love speaks a language and that language is, and always will be, sacrifice.

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?

8kczg9v0swrydm · 02-08-2020 5:22pm

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 · 02-08-2020 5:28pm

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 · 02-08-2020 6:37pm

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 · 03-08-2020 11:14am

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 · 03-08-2020 11:23am

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 · 03-08-2020 12:21pm

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 · 03-08-2020 12:58pm

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 · 03-08-2020 2:39pm

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 · 03-08-2020 3:31pm

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 · 03-08-2020 3:37pm

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 · 03-08-2020 4:02pm

John Hutton wrote: »

Try reading what I wrote again.

Try explaining it more clearly.

Upforthematch · 03-08-2020 6:24pm

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 · 03-08-2020 6:55pm

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 · 04-08-2020 9:55pm

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 · 04-08-2020 10:13pm

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 · 04-08-2020 10:20pm

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 · 04-08-2020 10:24pm

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

John Hutton · 04-08-2020 10:26pm

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 · 09-08-2020 8:08pm

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 · 09-08-2020 8:48pm

1990sman wrote: »

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

Only if there’s someone there.

would you say most priests actually believe in god?

Comments