Live, suffer, die.

hgfj · 31-08-2019 6:19pm #1

Does suffering have a purpose? Is suffering supposed to teach us something? Is it supposed to be good for our souls? What do animals learn from suffering? Is it supposed to be good for their souls too? And if animals don't have souls then what's the point in their suffering? If God is such a great and loving guy/gal/entity/whatever then why all the pointless suffering?

homer911 · 31-08-2019 8:09pm

Suffering is the result of sin entering the world. It was never God's desire for us. However all things can be used for God's purpose, even suffering.

Your question seems to be coming from a difficult place OP, can you be more specific and maybe we can help?

kneemos · 31-08-2019 8:35pm

Often heard it said of a deceased person that they suffered so much on earth they are surely in heaven.

Never understood how suffering is good for the soul.

tonybtonyb · 31-08-2019 8:38pm

I don’t think it has a purpose it’s just a fact of life unfortunately

hgfj · 31-08-2019 9:48pm

homer911 wrote: »

Suffering is the result of sin entering the world. It was never God's desire for us. However all things can be used for God's purpose, even suffering.

With all due respect, I don't buy the idea of sin being the cause of suffering. It makes no sense to me. If sin is the cause of suffering then why do animals suffer? I'm not asking this because I have a particular fondness for animals, or anything, but every living thing suffers to some degree or another. Whether they have a soul or not. If suffering is the result of sin entering the world then why not only for humans? Are we supposed to learn something from it or are we simply being punished for the crimes of our ancestors, whatever those crimes might be. Also if sin entered the world, who's fault was that? How could anybody who has no knowledge of sin bring sin into the world?

[Deleted User] · 31-08-2019 9:54pm

homer911 wrote: »

Suffering is the result of sin entering the world. It was never God's desire for us. However all things can be used for God's purpose, even suffering.

A young child dying from leukemia is the result of sin entering the world? If this was God's intended purpose, then I cannot bring myself to perceive 'God' as an all-caring, benevolent entity.

theological · 02-09-2019 1:52pm

hgfj wrote: »

Does suffering have a purpose? Is suffering supposed to teach us something? Is it supposed to be good for our souls? What do animals learn from suffering? Is it supposed to be good for their souls too? And if animals don't have souls then what's the point in their suffering? If God is such a great and loving guy/gal/entity/whatever then why all the pointless suffering?

Thank you for your post. I'd like to help you answer some of these.

Fortunately for everyone reading, I don't have to give you my own answers. The Bible is an incredible book. It provides depth, it provides insight and it provides a lot of nuance. I don't know the particular issues from which you speak, but I pray that what I can write will help you in whatever faces you at the moment, or what may face you in the future.

Suffering isn't because of God, it is because of sin. The common modern way of phrasing it is that God is bad because we suffer, but the truth is that we suffer because our world is sinful and we are sinful. The Bible says that in the beginning God created the world and it was very good (Genesis 1:31). The problem with our world is that we rebelled against God (when I say we, I mean everyone, Romans 3:23 says that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God") and we decided that we were not going to live as God intended for us to live in His world. As a result the judgement is that the world is fallen and suffering is a reality.

This affects the whole creation in which we live and everything in it. Much of our creation is good and beautiful which reflects God's glory in creation, but much of it is also fallen and broken, reflecting the brokenness of sin. In Paul's letter to the Romans he writes that the entire creation is groaning because of the Fall.

Romans 8:19-25 wrote:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

Suffering is meant to make us more like Jesus, the one who went before us. We will suffer because He suffered if we follow after Him as Christians. That is also a gift from God, it can bring us closer to Him if we choose to use it in that way.

Paul the Apostle suffered a great deal for Jesus as He told others about Him, but he can see that suffering for Jesus makes us more like Him. He uses the suffering that we experience to help us to lean on Him for understanding. Following Jesus gives our lives a rich interpretative framework that we simply can't have without Him.

Romans 5:1-5 wrote:

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

Suffering isn't pointless, it can be often used to fulfil God's purposes in us. We should be willing to receive suffering as a gift from God to make us more like Jesus. That's hard to say, but we need to be using times when we are not suffering to prepare ourselves for when we do, so that suffering will bring us closer to the suffering God who died on the cross in agony for us even when we hated Him and His Word. Christians have a God who suffered, which is a great comfort for us who follow after Him. No other faith has a God like ours as a result.

Romans 5:8-9 wrote:

For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Here's a short post on Desiring God which goes through some of these things in some more depth.

If you'd like to chat more, feel free to PM me about some of the issues and it'd be great to chat through them more.

Cabaal · 02-09-2019 2:13pm

Deleted User wrote: »

A young child dying from leukemia is the result of sin entering the world? If this was God's intended purpose, then I cannot bring myself to perceive 'God' as an all-caring, benevolent entity.

"God works in mysterious ways" don't you know...

victor8600 · 02-09-2019 2:33pm

hgfj wrote: »

...If God is such a great and loving guy/gal/entity/whatever ....

Who told you that God is loving? Children's bible?

Some Bible contributors say "Oh, God gave us Jesus who died for our sins. Surely this is the indication of Godly love!" Wow, that is a stretch of imagination. One could just say that God should hate us for killing his son. And our continuous suffering is the proof of that hate.

Certainly the Old Testament's God is not all-loving. It loves selected people whom it gives advantage so that the selected people can kill other less desirable peoples.

handlemaster · 02-09-2019 2:38pm

If the all knowing God is just that surely Shim could have seen that giving the free will of man/woman would lead to thousands of years of needless suffering or humans ?

Peregrinus · 03-09-2019 3:15am

handlemaster wrote: »

If the all knowing God is just that surely Shim could have seen that giving the free will of man/woman would lead to thousands of years of needless suffering or humans ?

Would it be better if we had no freedom and no suffering?

Quantum Erasure · 03-09-2019 5:44am

yes, it would.

handlemaster · 03-09-2019 8:05am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Would it be better if we had no freedom and no suffering?

There is an assumption that you have to have suffering ? Why ? If Shim has designed the human these could all have been designed out . Shim been all knowing would have the capacity to do that.

Peregrinus · 03-09-2019 8:34am

handlemaster wrote: »

There is an assumption that you have to have suffering ? Why ? If Shim has designed the human these could all have been designed out . Shim been all knowing would have the capacity to do that.

That's an assumption that you make yourself in post #10.

But, FWIW, it's a defensible post. If I'm free to choose how to act, then I'm free to choose to act in a way which will result in suffering, whether for myself or others (or both). I don't see how this can be avoided.

You could argue, I suppose, that God could have created us without the capacity to suffer. (Like a rock, say.) But if you can't suffer then you can't experience the opposite of suffering - rejoicing, exultation, glory, fulfilment - which seems like a fairly serious limitation on humanity. Would we even be recognisably human if we couldn't suffer?

handlemaster · 03-09-2019 9:00am

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's an assumption that you make yourself in post #10.

But, FWIW, it's a defensible post. If I'm free to choose how to act, then I'm free to choose to act in a way which will result in suffering, whether for myself or others (or both). I don't see how this can be avoided.

You could argue, I suppose, that God could have created us without the capacity to suffer. (Like a rock, say.) But if you can't suffer then you can't experience the opposite of suffering - rejoicing, exultation, glory, fulfilment - which seems like a fairly serious limitation on humanity. Would we even be recognisably human if we couldn't suffer?

Shim could have programmed all this in. Your understanding is based on what we are now not on what we could have been. There are no rules when you are the maker of all .

Peregrinus · 03-09-2019 9:12am

handlemaster wrote: »

Shim could have programmed all this in. Your understanding is based on what we are now not on what we could have been. There are no rules when you are the maker of all .

Actually, there are. God cannot do the logically impossible. He cannot create another God identical to himself, to take one obvious example.

So, is it logically consistent to imagine a creature that can experience well-being, but cannot experience the lack of well-being, in a universe in which well-being and the lack of it are both possibilities? I don't think it is.

smacl · 03-09-2019 9:33am

Peregrinus wrote: »

God cannot do the logically impossible. He cannot create another God identical to himself, to take one obvious example.

Completely OT P. but why is that a logical impossibility? I get that God is considered a trinitarian singularity but logically why could it not be within His ability to change His own nature? I would have thought that this would be consistent with being all powerful.

looksee · 03-09-2019 9:41am

smacl wrote: »

Completely OT P. but why is that a logical impossibility? I get that God is considered a trinitarian singularity but logically why could it not be within His ability to change His own nature? I would have thought that this would be consistent with being all powerful.

I was wondering that Smacl, and the only thought I have is that there could not be two 'all powerfuls' as then neither would be all powerful.

smacl · 03-09-2019 9:57am

looksee wrote: »

I was wondering that Smacl, and the only thought I have is that there could not be two 'all powerfuls' as then neither would be all powerful.

Being all powerful I'd imagine it would also be within His ability to choose to cease being all powerful.

Peregrinus · 03-09-2019 10:34am

God is uncreated. If he were to create another God, Other God would necessarily be a created being and, in that respect, not identical to God.

(There are other respects in which Other God would be dissimilar - e.g. he wouldn't be the creator of all things other than Himself, which is one of the attributes of God. And you could probably think of still more dissimilarities. But one is enough.)

endacl · 03-09-2019 10:39am

Day Lewin · 03-09-2019 10:45am

i think our classification of experience as "suffereing" is an aspect of our limited understanding.
We just can't understand and explain everything...that's just an attempt to control the uncontrollable. And if we could, there wouldn't be much left.

Examples: the OP mentioned the suffering of animals. I take that to mean physical pain, rather than mental anxiety or existential angst.

The Lion is a carnivore, it hunts the antelope: tears it apart alive and eats it. (I'm sure that must hurt dreadfully)
That antelope cannot possibly "understand" in a human way the significance of its painful death or the part it plays in a complex eco-system.

Likewise, a human baby is brought to the doctor's clinic to have needles jabbed into its arm, causing pain: it howls the place down, it can't comprehend that this really is better than catching Diphtheria and Tuberculosis, etc.

Yes, pain of various kinds is an aspect of existence - but that's because we can't understand it.

Zillah · 03-09-2019 11:02am

theological wrote: »

Suffering isn't because of God, it is because of sin. The common modern way of phrasing it is that God is bad because we suffer, but the truth is that we suffer because our world is sinful and we are sinful.

How did sin cause an innocent child to die of agonising cancer? For an antelope to be slowly eaten alive by hyenas?

If the very metaphysical nature of the world itself was rendered torturous because of the mere existence of sin, then God created a world that would cause indescribable suffering if anyone sinned, with full foreknowledge that the humans he created would sin. God is timeless, God knew the world he created was preordained to be the one full of childhood cancer and all other manner of horror, but he chose to make it that way anyway - how is he not responsible for all that suffering? He could have made a universe where only a single individual suffers for their sin, where the innocents - human and animal alike - do not experience torment. He didn't. His actions are incompatible with benevolence.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But if you can't suffer then you can't experience the opposite of suffering

People who believe in an all-powerful God sure are quick to limit his abilities when it comes to absolving him of the consequences of his actions. God is all-powerful, he could make people who cannot suffer but who can experience all the good things in life - or do you limit God's capacity?

The dark tribal god Yahweh of the Old Testament had far more internally consistent theology than this. There has never been a coherent rebuke to the problem of evil.

EDIT: mixed up a sentence

theological · 03-09-2019 7:18pm

Zillah wrote: »

How did sin cause an innocent child to die of agonising cancer? For an antelope to be slowly eaten alive by hyenas?

If the very metaphysical nature of the world itself was rendered torturous because of the mere existence of sin, then God created a world that would cause indescribable suffering if anyone sinned, with full foreknowledge that the humans he created would sin. God is timeless, God knew the world he created was preordained to be the one full of childhood cancer and all other manner of horror, but he chose to make it that way anyway - how is he not responsible for all that suffering? He could have made a universe where only a single individual suffers for their sin, where the innocents - human and animal alike - do not experience torment. He didn't. His actions are incompatible with benevolence.

Sin (generally) brought about the Fall. With that there is decay, sickness and death. It is the result of our collective disobedience against God.

I know you are trying to labour to pin the blame on God, but the blame is firmly with those who oppose God and His loving rule over creation. That in effect is everybody either by virtue of being of the line of Adam, or on our own account (this doesn't take very long).

Romans 5:12-17 wrote:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Our sin and rebellion is the reason why Jesus Christ came into the world to die in our place for our sin so that we can be forgiven and live eternally with Him where there will be no pain, no death, and no suffering.

In order to dwell with God eternally, God has to deal with our sin. A sinful people cannot dwell with a holy God. This is why Jesus stands in our place to make us right with Him.

Jesus is familiar with our suffering, He stepped down into this world. He was deeply moved at the suffering caused by our sin. Perhaps one of the clearest examples of this was when Lazarus died in John's gospel.

John 11:33-35 wrote:

When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled. And he said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Lord, come and see.” Jesus wept.

In the same way as Jesus as deeply moved at suffering in this world when He was here, there is no reason to believe that He isn't deeply moved by it now. In fact He was so moved by it that He came in this world to suffer an agonising death on the cross to deal with the root problem of our sin and to put us right with God.

From another perspective - given that we so often put ourselves in the place of God and pretend that He doesn't exist a continual basis. Why does He continue to show us any good in creation at all? Where was God in all of the goodness?

God offers our world continual hope beyond the grave despite its blatant rebellion against Him. We don't deserve this.

Zillah wrote: »

People who believe in an all-powerful God sure are quick to limit his abilities when it comes to absolving him of the consequences of his actions. God is all-powerful, he could make people who cannot suffer but who can experience all the good things in life - or do you limit God's capacity?

The dark tribal god Yahweh of the Old Testament had far more internally consistent theology than this. There has never been a coherent rebuke to the problem of evil.

EDIT: mixed up a sentence

I don't limit God's abilities. I point the finger in the right direction. Our rebellion towards God's loving rule which actually brought the Fall about. Our sin has consequences, both temporal and eternal if we don't repent.

Luke 13:1-5 wrote:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

The God of the Bible (the God of both the Old and New Testament is one) is not "dark" or "tribal". He offers hope to the whole world through His Son Jesus Christ.

I just don't entertain the false accusations that you and others make about Him.

Zillah · 03-09-2019 7:41pm

theological wrote: »

Sin (generally) brought about the Fall. With that there is decay, sickness and death. It is the result of our collective disobedience against God.

I know you are trying to labour to pin the blame on God, but the blame is firmly with those who oppose God and His loving rule over creation. That in effect is everybody either by virtue of being of the line of Adam, or on our own account (this doesn't take very long).

Let's break it down:

1 - Did God know that His new creation would crumble into a world of misery and torment if someone within that world ever committed sin?

2 - Did God have the power to create a world where that did not happen?

The answer, of course, has to be yes to both, because God is both omniscient and omnipotent. All that is not God was created by God, by a deliberate act of divine will, so it is a nonsense to declare fundamental truths to be anything other than his explicit will.

If sin causes decay, sickness, and death, it is because God decided it would be so - inescapably; because if not God's, then by whose will?

God knowingly created a universe where innocent children die of cancer.

theological · 03-09-2019 10:46pm

Zillah wrote: »

Let's break it down:

1 - Did God know that His new creation would crumble into a world of misery and torment if someone within that world ever committed sin?

2 - Did God have the power to create a world where that did not happen?

The answer, of course, has to be yes to both, because God is both omniscient and omnipotent. All that is not God was created by God, by a deliberate act of divine will, so it is a nonsense to declare fundamental truths to be anything other than his explicit will.

If sin causes decay, sickness, and death, it is because God decided it would be so - inescapably; because if not God's, then by whose will?

God knowingly created a universe where innocent children die of cancer.

This post is probably going to be my last to you on this thread as I can already tell that we're probably going to go in circles. I will respond once and provide you some Bible references to look at it you're interested.

God knew that we would sin sure. That is not the same as saying that He is responsible for our sin however. The Bible is clear that we are accountable for what we do. The Bible teaches both that God is sovereign and that we have human responsibility. If you want to see how that works you can read Romans 9-11 in your own time.

God can and will create a world without sin and death. It will follow this one. Understanding that sin has consequences is obviously an essential part of His plan for human beings. Knowing the consequence for sin is precisely why we rejoice at the coming of Jesus Christ to save us. In the same way that the good things in this life are a foretaste of the new heavens and new earth in Revelation the pain and suffering and brokenness in this life are a foretaste of what separation from God looks like in hell. In the same way that the brokenness of creation is a consequence of sin in a general sense (meaning that sickness isn't given to someone because of a particular sin but because of the generalised consequence of the Fall) eternity separated from God in hell is a particular consequence of our refusal to honour God as He deserves to be honoured.

Try all you like but the consequences for our sin are ours. Also, presuming your judgement to be better than God is also a bit silly given that God knows the full detail involved where we don't. Also we're to engage in the world as it is, not how you think it should be. A key strength of the gospel is that it doesn't sugar coat what life is like on earth but it engages with life as it is broken and messy and it offers a solution the shed blood of Jesus Christ which sets us right with God. That solution is there for you to accept at any stage. It is a loving solution from a loving God who stepped down to earth for you to die in your place so that you can go free.

Zillah · 03-09-2019 11:08pm

theological wrote: »

meaning that sickness isn't given to someone because of a particular sin but because of the generalised consequence of the Fall

Right, but, see, this bit here is the crux of the problem. Why did God make a world where there are "generalised consequences of the Fall"? He knew that would result in innocent babies suffering and dying because of the sins of others. Isn't that cruel? He could have made a world where the consequences of sin would be upon only the one who committed the sin. You keep trying to describe this "generalised Fall" as if it is just a facet of the universe, while ignoring the fact that it only exists that way because God explicitly chose to make the universe that way.

We probably will go around in circles, I agree, but it's because you keep ignoring my central point and I keep trying to rephrase it for you in a way you won't ignore.

I can totally buy the consequences of MY sins being on MY head, but why should a baby die of cancer because of other people's sins? That's really the central point here. Answer me that: why should babies suffer and die from cancer because of other people's sins? Make sure you've addressed that point directly before you suggest it's my fault we're going in circles, because that's the only thing I want answered.

uck51js9zml2yt · 08-09-2019 8:57pm

Zillah wrote: »

Right, but, see, this bit here is the crux of the problem. Why did God make a world where there are "generalised consequences of the Fall"? He knew that would result in innocent babies suffering and dying because of the sins of others. Isn't that cruel? He could have made a world where the consequences of sin would be upon only the one who committed the sin. You keep trying to describe this "generalised Fall" as if it is just a facet of the universe, while ignoring the fact that it only exists that way because God explicitly chose to make the universe that way.

We probably will go around in circles, I agree, but it's because you keep ignoring my central point and I keep trying to rephrase it for you in a way you won't ignore.

I can totally buy the consequences of MY sins being on MY head, but why should a baby die of cancer because of other people's sins? That's really the central point here. Answer me that: why should babies suffer and die from cancer because of other people's sins? Make sure you've addressed that point directly before you suggest it's my fault we're going in circles, because that's the only thing I want answered.

We were given freewill. Would you have preferred to be a robot?

kelly1 · 15-10-2019 12:36pm

hgfj wrote: »

Does suffering have a purpose? Is suffering supposed to teach us something? Is it supposed to be good for our souls?

Hi, I haven't read the other posts but my own view is that God doesn't will for us to suffer but He allows it to happen in order to instruct and correct us.

For example, if a person went through life with no difficulties, the tendency would be to become complacent and to start forgetting about the purpose of life, which is to know, love, and serve God.

But suffering need not be pointless. To use an old phrase, we can "offer it up". This means that we offer our suffering in union with Christ's suffering on the cross to God the Father in order to bring down graces for sinners, who otherwise would not receive them. St. Faustina's diary is a great example of this "economy" of salvation.

uck51js9zml2yt · 15-10-2019 11:11pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A young child dying from leukemia is the result of sin entering the world? If this was God's intended purpose, then I cannot bring myself to perceive 'God' as an all-caring, benevolent entity.

It's a result of sin entering. You'll need to read the letter to the Romans for an exposition of why and how.

It was never God's purpose but a result of Man having freewill and exercising it to the detriment of creation.

kelly1 · 31-10-2019 3:33pm

Deleted User wrote: »

A young child dying from leukemia is the result of sin entering the world? If this was God's intended purpose, then I cannot bring myself to perceive 'God' as an all-caring, benevolent entity.

Suffering is the result of sin. If there were no sin, there would be no suffering.

But taking leukemia as an example, why assume that's God's fault? It could have been some carcinogenic ingredient in the baby formula or excessive exposure to radiation etc. God gets blamed for far too much.

The fact that God sent His Son into the world to die for us, shows 2 things:

1) God takes sin very seriously, He doesn't brush the problem under the carpet.
2) God loves us very much.

So tbh the argument that God isn't all-caring and benevolent doesn't hold much water in light of Jesus willing death on the cross.

God is never unjust, humans are. The problem is that people think in purely natural terms and they can't conceive of the infinite insult that sin causes to an infinitely holy God.

Live, suffer, die.

Comments