This is a thread to discuss the role of suffering in relation to the Catholic god. First, a few questions: if Catholicism does not teach that its god enjoys suffering, would it be fair to characterize the religion as teaching that its god *values* suffering? Would it also be fair to say that it teaches that its god *encourages* suffering, at least in some cases, and views it as a "gift"? If it is true that the Catholic god values and/or encourages the “gift†of suffering, what is precisely the difference between saying that this god “values†suffering and saying that this god “enjoys†suffering? Now yes, people can value something that they also do not enjoy – for example, I might value physical exercise even though I don't enjoy doing it, or something like that – but examples like those are within the context of being a human being, being someone who does not have unlimited power to do anything at any given moment. If I had the power to keep myself in shape with the snap of my fingers, I would cease to value physical exercise altogether. For a being who purportedly has unlimited power – and, for the sake of argument, I'll ignore the fact that omnipotence is inherently self-contradictory – I would assume that such a being would only value things that he approves of and, yes, enjoys. To give an obvious example, this god, according to the story, specifically *chose* that the means of atonement for humanity should be a blood sacrifice full of suffering (i.e. the death of Jesus on a cross). He could have chosen anything, being omnipotent. He could have chosen to incarnate as a human and lead people in a large-scale act of charitable giving, and that could have been the means of atonement. He could have chosen to incarnate as a human and lead people in performing a virtuous labor that could have been the means of atonement. He could have chosen to simply change the rules and forgive all of humanity (especially those humans who did nothing themselves to earn the burden of “original sinâ€). Instead, he chose – specifically chose – painful, bloody suffering as the means of atonement. To me, when a being with unlimited power makes a choice, that choice tells us something about his nature, about the things he values and, consequently – given his ability to choose something different in the case of his not enjoying it – about the things he enjoys. So, to wrap this up, I would like to ask thread responders to please explain whether it is correct to say that the Catholic god “enjoys,†“values,†or “encourages†suffering, and, if you could, please comment on the nature of a being who can choose absolutely anything at all but specifically chooses painful bloody sacrifice and suffering.
The idea of the Catholic 'god' is, as it is in most of the world's organised religions, a feint, distorted reflection of the original insights behind it. The only reason suffering forms any part of religion is because man usurped those ideas for his own selfishness, making the idea of god into an image best suited for controlling the people. And didn't it work well!
I think the Jesus gospel story exists because, it tells that god can make you suffer(hell) or be at peace(heaven) this gives god absolute power on your fate when you die. if you believe in him(jesus) you get eternal life in heaven. It says that on purpose god chose to be beaten and crucified in human form(it says that god tells jesus what to do while on earth) I assume using telepathy? like reading your own mind LOL... wait, we do that. Then coming back from dead after 3 days, right? I think he spent the 3 days in hell? Then showed up for some witnesses to back a reincarnation claim. And ascended into heaven to be with himself. que?
The answer to all your questions about Catholicism. Everything else is a bullshit rhetoric stolen from other religions and cultures (e.g. The Trinity 'The Father, The Son, The Holy Ghost' is actually stolen from Hinduism, their representatives being Bramha, Vishna and Shiva)
You don't know that with any certainty. Your values will change over time my friend; And some day you'll understand the non-physical value of hard work, and the necessity of at least SOME suffering to a healthy life. Any wise being would certainly understand that suffering brings meaning and purpose to life; And with that understanding comes the inevitable 'value' of life itself, at least to humans. You might also consider the God <-> Human / Father <-> Son analogy here as well. When you have a child, and when you love that child.. You want that child to develop into a well rounded, likable, successful adult. Sometimes you're going to have to watch that child go through some rough patches that you don't want to watch them go through (first time they are dumped by a lover, first time they have to deal with a bully, when they break an arm or a leg because they were being careless, etc).. It's certainly within the Father's power to keep those things from happening, but it comes at a cost to that child's development -one that isn't worth paying. Does it mean that this kid's father is a cynical asshole, who enjoys watching him hurt and suffer? Or does it mean that the Father simply understands the value of pain as a learning tool, and wants the child to experience both good and bad things in order to develop all of the desired traits of a respectable adult? P.S. about the Jesus crucifiction thing... Consider what people respond to. Would the story have lasted as long as it had throughout history had it not been so dramatic and edgy? The whole thing was about making a POINT that would endure for millennia, and speak with very little vagueness a message that can cross culture barriers. I would call that a job well done.