Thread: The Value of Suffering? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026580
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Okay, gotta put some parameters on that. Something I'm puzzling about lately as a Christian speaking from a Christian point of view is the value of certain kinds of suffering. I mean, I understand the kind that issues in something worthwhile (e.g. pregnancy or writing a freakin' book). I understand the value of enduring unjust suffering imposed by someone else if it serves as a witness to someone else of Christ, or if it brings about a bettering of somebody's situation (e.g. getting yourself arrested while nonviolently standing up for abused workers). And I understand the general value of suffering in knocking the rough edges off one's personality (we hope, anyway) and teaching patience, persistence, forgiveness, etc.
What I don't get is the value of suffering that seems to be minus any of that (well, maybe not the last). I mean, is suffering ever just plain wasted? If the suffering is bettering nobody's lot, serves as a witness to nobody, and isn't having any visible effect for the good on either the perp or the victim, is it wasted? (Assume for the moment that there are damn good reasons the victim can't remove himself from the situation, or bring about change in it either.)
This is maybe a bit incoherent. If my prose is causing any of you to suffer, my apologies.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Why must suffering have a purpose ?
[ 19. November 2013, 23:00: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Logically, it need not. I raise the question because wasted anything tends to piss me off, and I'm hoping to discover some other perspective on such situations.
Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on
:
I've been brooding over this issue over the last year. There was a Baptist Sermon I attended over a year ago where I watched the young pastor jab his finger at the old wooden cross on the stage and declare "IT'S ALL ABOUT SACRIFICE!!". It could of been "all about suffering", too. I have a little trouble remembering because I was suffering myself. My flatmate was secretly screwing me over while I was trying to show him the love of Christ.
The idea of sacrifice was going around a bit at the time. The Red Cross was sending emails asking if I could sacrifice chocolate and use the money saved to donate. I was getting the idea that both the Red Cross and my church were in serious financial troubles.
I heard this "sacrifice" message at exactly the wrong time. I gave me the confirmation that the difficulties I was enduring with my flatmate were simply part of my Christian journey. After I kicked that flatmate out, I endured trauma and anxiety up until this day. Six months in, one of the pastors from that church called me to find out how was going. His response to my anxiety was "You've sinned somehow".
Saying it's about "suffering" or about "sacrifice" without indicating a reason or goal behind it is highly reckless council (expletives withheld). That's my perspective.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
.... And I understand the general value of suffering in knocking the rough edges off one's personality (we hope, anyway) and teaching patience, persistence, forgiveness, etc.
What I don't get is the value of suffering that seems to be minus any of that (well, maybe not the last). I mean, is suffering ever just plain wasted? If the suffering is bettering nobody's lot, serves as a witness to nobody, and isn't having any visible effect for the good on either the perp or the victim, is it wasted?
I don't understand why you dismiss the last part of your list of possible values - do they count for nothing?
I believe that nothing is ever wasted, although, of course, invisible effects provide very little in the way of comfort. And saying that nothing is wasted does not mean at all that the benefits outweigh the suffering. However, it seems like most of us (or at least most of us who are theists) respond to suffering by becoming more inclined to turn to God and more likely to accept the fact that we need help from others, at least occasionally, which is something I happen to believe is a key idea that God wants us to understand in a very deep and profound way.
The more I come to understand myself and others, the more I believe that the kind of life we tend to see as ideal and tend to strive for, with no loss or suffering or pain or adversity at all, would only lead us to take everything good for granted and to decide we don't need God or other people for anything. Less suffering is always better than more suffering, but I think it's up to us to try to achieve that as much as we can for each other, whether it's through scientific research, practical help, or impotent sympathy. Basically, we're all in this together and I think the whole of creation was designed to encourage us to see the truth of that, even though life can so often really, really suck as a result.
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
As such - no point per se. You are simply rowing towards survival and recovery against the tide.
But in the future (if you have one and maybe even if you don't)) you can help others using your experience; both in practical ways and in understanding, listening, explaining, encouraging.
As well as being a "living treasure" to your circle or community and the subject of stories passed on by them to their suffering friends.
It is a situation where you often have to rely on others - to learn to ask for and accept help, to realise how people-in-general don't like to see you or anyone suffering and will always help (or get someone else to help) especially if you actually ask them.
That's not the POINT OF IT of course but something that I feel was of value to me and those around me through cancer, recurrence and A Terrible Tractor Accident.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Highfive: quote:
I heard this "sacrifice" message at exactly the wrong time. I gave me the confirmation that the difficulties I was enduring with my flatmate were simply part of my Christian journey. After I kicked that flatmate out, I endured trauma and anxiety up until this day. Six months in, one of the pastors from that church called me to find out how was going. His response to my anxiety was "You've sinned somehow".
Fuck. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Way to blame the victim, Rev.-pastor-sir. Jerk. My sympathies. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
As far as I can see, suffering may help us build compassion for others in the difficulties of their own journeys, and perhaps build patience with the less winsome ways they deal with their pain. Not everybody does grow in these ways, but the possibility is there.
If the Kingdom of God were accomplished in its fullness, this wouldn't be an issue. Maybe no one would need compassion. But could you imagine a person who has never suffered in any way dealing with the rest of us riff-raff here and now? Most such folks would be pretty handicapped IMO.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Logically, it need not. I raise the question because wasted anything tends to piss me off, and I'm hoping to discover some other perspective on such situations.
But, for something to be 'wasted' assumes it is usually - or often - a resource (something you elaborate in your op). I don't accept this premise. It seems to me that this is to over assign meaning to events, just as much as assuming positive co-incidences are evidence 'fate'.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
There is no value in innocent suffering. Innocent suffering is not morally intelligible.
Voltaire and Dostoyevsky say it best.
quote:
Voltaire sees only the terrible truth that the actual history of suffering and death is not morally intelligible. Dostoevsky sees—and this bespeaks both his moral genius and his Christian view of reality—that it would be far more terrible if it were.
Anti-theodicy.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It depends on what you call innocent suffering. The classic example is the deer burning to death in a forest fire, but in human terms, children who are badly treated are innocent really.
This becomes difficult, since at the time, the suffering of the child seems to have no value, but later in life, it can acquire value, since through working through this suffering (as others have said), this can deepen our compassion for others.
I also think that it can help us to let go of ego and see God! But this is all a consequence of a material world, I suppose, which involves plenty of suffering and death.
Simone Weil expressed this in her enigmatic way: 'time's violence rends the soul; by the rent, eternity enters'.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
I am assuming that the kind of "value of suffering" referred to in the OP is the sort of thing where someone experiences some form of trauma or difficulty and because of their experience is better equipped to help those who suffer in a similar way, for example. For me this is an example of grace redeeming a bad thing and bringing good from it. It does not mean the suffering itself was good or had value.
This is why there is a difference all suffering is bad, if there is nothing that can be done to redeem it then there is no value/point. If there is a way to redeem some good from the situation and help others or prevent others suffering the same fate then value has been gained but that came from the grace/redemption not the suffering.
Ok. Got my tin hat on. Fire away.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
All of the above, especially Fyodor.
For me it's completely contingent. Creation = suffering for all concerned. Created. Creator.
Siddartha Gautama was on the right track: "I teach only two things, O disciples, the fact of suffering and the possibility of escape from suffering.". He just wasn't inclusive and optimistic enough. And suffering cannot be avoided.
Job trumps him for me. Man is born to trouble. The answer: 'Have you seen the hippo?'. In other words, don't worry, it's sorted.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
I am assuming that the kind of "value of suffering" referred to in the OP is the sort of thing where someone experiences some form of trauma or difficulty and because of their experience is better equipped to help those who suffer in a similar way, for example. For me this is an example of grace redeeming a bad thing and bringing good from it. It does not mean the suffering itself was good or had value.
This is why there is a difference all suffering is bad, if there is nothing that can be done to redeem it then there is no value/point. If there is a way to redeem some good from the situation and help others or prevent others suffering the same fate then value has been gained but that came from the grace/redemption not the suffering.
Ok. Got my tin hat on. Fire away.
Yes. I tend to back off from any pragmatic value in suffering. I think that before my suffering can accomplish anything, it first has to mean something. And the meaning is not intrinsic. I have to make the meaning. At best, that's a heavy blacksmithing job. At worst, impossible.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
I am assuming that the kind of "value of suffering" referred to in the OP is the sort of thing where someone experiences some form of trauma or difficulty and because of their experience is better equipped to help those who suffer in a similar way, for example. For me this is an example of grace redeeming a bad thing and bringing good from it. It does not mean the suffering itself was good or had value.
This is why there is a difference all suffering is bad, if there is nothing that can be done to redeem it then there is no value/point. If there is a way to redeem some good from the situation and help others or prevent others suffering the same fate then value has been gained but that came from the grace/redemption not the suffering.
Ok. Got my tin hat on. Fire away.
Brilliant. Very well said.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Simone Weil expressed this in her enigmatic way: 'time's violence rends the soul; by the rent, eternity enters'.
Eternity entering is one option: when there is nothing left.
The other option is rejection of eternity and the acceptance of nihilism.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
I've been brooding over this issue over the last year. There was a Baptist Sermon I attended over a year ago where I watched the young pastor jab his finger at the old wooden cross on the stage and declare "IT'S ALL ABOUT SACRIFICE!!". It could of been "all about suffering", too. I have a little trouble remembering because I was suffering myself. My flatmate was secretly screwing me over while I was trying to show him the love of Christ.
The idea of sacrifice was going around a bit at the time. The Red Cross was sending emails asking if I could sacrifice chocolate and use the money saved to donate. I was getting the idea that both the Red Cross and my church were in serious financial troubles.
I heard this "sacrifice" message at exactly the wrong time. I gave me the confirmation that the difficulties I was enduring with my flatmate were simply part of my Christian journey. After I kicked that flatmate out, I endured trauma and anxiety up until this day. Six months in, one of the pastors from that church called me to find out how was going. His response to my anxiety was "You've sinned somehow".
Saying it's about "suffering" or about "sacrifice" without indicating a reason or goal behind it is highly reckless council (expletives withheld). That's my perspective.
I feel for you.
It seems that there's a kind of 'karma' principle in the minds of some Christians which looks backwards on suffering to add a dose of blame and guilt rather than to try to look forward, as Lamb Chopped and others indicate, to co-operate with God's grace and love to bring some good from it.
We all suffer at times. I don't believe that God caused our suffering. I do believe that God feels what we feel, and that God wants to maximise its potential for good.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
And yeah, Jammy Dodger you and Dostoevsky both.
As Evensong said.
And Highfive too.
Whenever someone tells me to sacrifice, give more, do more, evangelize more, I say, "Show me.". I really have. They don't like it.
Don't let ANYONE transfer, afflict, project, throw THEIR inadequacy, THEIR guilt as stones from THEIR detached houses, THEIR middle class comfort.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Evensong wrote:
Eternity entering is one option: when there is nothing left.
The other option is rejection of eternity and the acceptance of nihilism.
Yes, that's correct. It's probable that many people become bitter through suffering, and don't see the 'rent' in reality at all. I puzzle over this long and hard. I will report back when illumination occurs!
I can't help another saying from the blessed Simone on the subject of nihilism:
To say that the world is not worth anything, that this life is of no value, and to give evil as the proof, is absurd, for if these things are worthless, what does evil take from us?
(Very like C. S. Lewis, I think).
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I also think that it can help us to let go of ego and see God! But this is all a consequence of a material world, I suppose, which involves plenty of suffering and death.
That seems to make faith something like Stockholm syndrome.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I also think that it can help us to let go of ego and see God! But this is all a consequence of a material world, I suppose, which involves plenty of suffering and death.
That seems to make faith something like Stockholm syndrome.
I have heard that comparison before! Does it? I suppose if you see God as inflicting suffering on us, for soul-enhancing purposes, that would get close to Stockholm. However, there is something a bit different about that from what I said. I will have to make it more precise, I think.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Mention of Stockholm Syndrome reminds me of that stark line from Fulke Greville about Christianity's view of mankind:
'Created sick, and commanded to be well'.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Another way of recasting the issue in a very personal way is "Why should I go on [in this painful situation]?" What is the point of continuing under suffering that appears to have no point? Oh dear, I'm getting to the Hamlet state:
quote:
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them. [AS IF!] To die: to sleep:
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d.
[ 21. November 2013, 01:40: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
I think that for Christians the difference is that God, Christ, also suffered so when we suffer we share the experience with Him and if we are indeed member of His Mystical Body then He suffers through us.
That gives gives it meaning even if we are unaware of it or don't consciously unite our suffering with Christ's, but if we do unite our suffering with Christ's then we've had an extra part in God's plan of salvation and, on a personal and psychological level, it can potentially guide and sustain us through our share in suffering.
[ 21. November 2013, 02:32: Message edited by: Pancho ]
Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on
:
But Jesus knew he would rise on the third day.
http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2016.21
We can't look to prophecy to know when certain kinds of suffering will end.
Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on
:
Argh, I mean "He" not "he"!
Posted by christianbuddhist (# 17579) on
:
The idea that suffering is somehow noble, desirable and intrinsically character building is the ideology of the boarding school, not of Christianity.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
The idea that suffering is somehow noble, desirable and intrinsically character building is the ideology of the boarding school, not of Christianity.
There's a nice connexion though, in the muscular Christianity which was promulgated in the great public schools of England, so that a boy, fresh from the rugby field, could go straight to the front, and be killed. Follow up, follow up, follow up, till the field ring again and again, with the tramp of the twenty two men!
Now, I feel so moved, I wish to find a battle field to get shot on. Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war! Raa, raa, raa, school!
Overcome with emotion, I collapse on the sofa.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Another way of recasting the issue in a very personal way is "Why should I go on [in this painful situation]?" What is the point of continuing under suffering that appears to have no point? Oh dear, I'm getting to the Hamlet state:
quote:
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them. [AS IF!] To die: to sleep:
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d.
Maybe (generic) you shouldn't. People frequently stay in crap situations because they present themselves with false choices. E.g. Either I carry on, or 'they' win - when there is no battle in the first place. There are also almost always more than two choices, but our thinking tends to narrow and polarise under stress.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I agree that there are times to give up, and figuring out whether the suffering is worthwhile or not is precisely part of that process to me. That is, assuming you have a real way to opt out. Not everyone will.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by christianbuddhist:
The idea that suffering is somehow noble, desirable and intrinsically character building is the ideology of the boarding school, not of Christianity.
In the Gospels, Christ tells his followers to take up their cross. In his epistles, St. Paul describes sharing in Christ's suffering, becoming like him in his death that he may share in the resurrection. Christianity has found meaning in suffering right from the beginning.
That's not to say we shouldn't seek doctors if we're sick, or take aspirins for headaches, or quit jobs that are driving us crazy and we can look at our situations and how to deal with them objectively but before we get to the doctor or submit our resignation letter we can unite the pain we do and did experience with Christ's.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I agree that there are times to give up, and figuring out whether the suffering is worthwhile or not is precisely part of that process to me. That is, assuming you have a real way to opt out. Not everyone will.
I don't think terms like "give up" help - they imply a dichotomous narrative of the situation. If you have cancer, for example, you can not choose not have it but you can choose many of the ways in which you respond to it.
And, I would argue, choosing not to have the third round of chemotherapy is not "losing the battle with cancer" or "giving in" it a choice a person makes about the quality of their life and how to live with their illness. Similarly battle and conflict narratives about one's life choices in other situations can be unhelpful.
"Is it worth it or not ?" Is again almost certainly to reduce a complex situation to a false choice.
[ 22. November 2013, 09:58: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Wise words Doublethink. Kudos.
"Letting go" can be better phraseology than "giving up".
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Another way of recasting the issue in a very personal way is "Why should I go on [in this painful situation]?" What is the point of continuing under suffering that appears to have no point?
Quite simply, because you have no choice.
I very much agree with Jammy Dodger. Suffering has no "value" or purpose. God can and does work in and thru suffering, but, as he noted, that speaks to God's grace and goodness, not to the value of suffering per se. Rather, that seems to be the point of the gospel-- Christ came into the world to redeem and restore it-- to set things right. And we are told that ultimate "setting right" is a world without suffering and death. Which tells me that suffering is NOT good or right, it does not "add value"-- but is the work (or byproduct of the work) of the enemy.
[code]
[ 22. November 2013, 14:40: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I vaguely remember a similar thread years ago that got totally derailed by the choice/no choice issue. Could I maybe try to prevent that? IMHO yes, you always have a formal "choice"--there's always SOME alternative. But in reality there are some times where every freaking one of those alternatives is unutterably sucky. Either because it's something no decent person would do (e.g. abandon a troubled child who is making one's life hell) or because it's beyond the individual's personal capacity (e.g. I've discovered I simply can't tell flattering lies, I just can't, I suck at it, I'd rather eat a tripledecker sauerkraut sandwich with arsenic sauce). Those choices exist but they might as well not exist, for all the use the sufferer gets out of them.
It's also true that perfectly good but unnoticed alternatives get overlooked or downplayed sometimes. But it's hard for an outsider to tell if that's the case, as what looks doable from outside may be utterly impossible to the one who knows the whole story. Which may include confidential information.
But back to the idea of value in suffering--somebody upthread spoke of "joining your suffering to that of Christ." I've heard that idea before, but don't really know what it means. Is it anything more than "I am part of the body of Christ, so when I suffer, he suffers"? Isit some sort of mental act? What exactly is it?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But back to the idea of value in suffering-
Which begs the question doesn't it, you are functionally taking it for granted that there is. And therefore, reasoning that in a given situation you either find the value or its wasted. I am not sure you are even admitting of the existence of a situation where suffering doesn't have at least potential value.
If you are going to assume that it usually has value, then the only way you can decide if it is ever wasted is to be clear on the origin of the value. If it is some sort of sacrifice to Christ (why God wants this is entirely unclear to me) then presumably no suffering can be wasted in the same way that worship can not be wasted.
If it derives its value as a some form of learning experience, then presumably it is wasted if you either lack the capacity to process the lesson (i.e. like watching a smoker you love die of lung cancer before anyone knew there was a connection with smoking) - or if you had already learned that particular life lesson, i.e. wearing clothes that aren't fully dry in winter raises your risk of a cold. You may judge its worth it cos they'll dry before you get to work and you don't want to wear dirty clothes to work, but if you don't care about getting a cold much it may not motivate you to be more organized about your laundry.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
But Jesus knew he would rise on the third day.
http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Matthew%2016.21
We can't look to prophecy to know when certain kinds of suffering will end.
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
Argh, I mean "He" not "he"!
Don't think so.
I think it means he, she, I , you, them, us, everyone.
Re some of the other things, particularly shit pastors say:
"It’s not somebody who has seen the light
It’s cold and it’s a broken Hallelujah."
With the emphasis on broken. Some pastors are stupid idiots.
[ 22. November 2013, 23:37: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But back to the idea of value in suffering-
Which begs the question doesn't it, you are functionally taking it for granted that there is. And therefore, reasoning that in a given situation you either find the value or its wasted. I am not sure you are even admitting of the existence of a situation where suffering doesn't have at least potential value.
If you are going to assume that it usually has value, then the only way you can decide if it is ever wasted is to be clear on the origin of the value. If it is some sort of sacrifice to Christ (why God wants this is entirely unclear to me) then presumably no suffering can be wasted in the same way that worship can not be wasted.
If it derives its value as a some form of learning experience, then presumably it is wasted if you either lack the capacity to process the lesson (i.e. like watching a smoker you love die of lung cancer before anyone knew there was a connection with smoking) - or if you had already learned that particular life lesson, i.e. wearing clothes that aren't fully dry in winter raises your risk of a cold. You may judge its worth it cos they'll dry before you get to work and you don't want to wear dirty clothes to work, but if you don't care about getting a cold much it may not motivate you to be more organized about your laundry.
I think we're talking past each other. I do not believe any suffering has value in and of itself qua suffering. I would be quite happy with a world in which no suffering at all existed. And i think the idea of suffering on purpose to make some sort of "offering" to God out of it (like the priests of Baal, who cut themselves)is beyond perverted.
But I think suffering gains a value--is "worth it"-- in some obvious cases, like the painful birth of a long awaited beloved child. Or the suffering that aid workers undergo as they help those so much worse off in emergencies. That pain is worth it, in this case because something good comes of it that could realistically speaking have come in no other way. But that still leaves me with the obscure cases, where suffering happens and there seems no redemption of it.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
When I look back on the suffering in my life, I realize that much of it (not all, by a long shot) has caused me to grow.
Having said that, I must emphasize that I am entitled to say that only about my own suffering. No one has the right to comment on what others should do with their suffering.
Moo
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I think that's true. There's an old saying that everyone should have at least one bad relationship, in order to cut their teeth, round off the rough edges, and get a sense of who's wrong and who's right for them. Well, maybe more than one.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think we're talking past each other. I do not believe any suffering has value in and of itself qua suffering. I would be quite happy with a world in which no suffering at all existed. And i think the idea of suffering on purpose to make some sort of "offering" to God out of it (like the priests of Baal, who cut themselves)is beyond perverted.
But I think suffering gains a value--is "worth it"-- in some obvious cases, like the painful birth of a long awaited beloved child. Or the suffering that aid workers undergo as they help those so much worse off in emergencies. That pain is worth it, in this case because something good comes of it that could realistically speaking have come in no other way. But that still leaves me with the obscure cases, where suffering happens and there seems no redemption of it.
Well, then we're still talking past each other, because I'm at a loss then about what you are asking for. You say you are not looking for a value in suffering, but then your question seems to be re: suffering that has no redeeming value or purpose. What exactly is it you're asking for?
Again, for myself, I would suggest that such instances are exactly that-- pure, futile, suffering-- for no greater good, no greater value, no "life lesson". They are evidence that the world is still screwed up in so many ways, and the reason why we cry out for God's ultimate restoration.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Its all relative
I am suffering. Through my own fault.
And I find absolutely no value in it at all
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Well, maybe I'm just not able to communicate it well enough. There is a particular situation of my own which is making me ask the question, but d***** if I'm going to bring it up on the Ship and get chewed up. It hurts too much when that happens. I'm sorry I can't seem to get the philosophical question across in general terms.
Posted by Sea of Tranquility (# 4454) on
:
Perhaps suffering is a bit like panning for gold? You give things a really good shake and find all sorts of truly valuable things surfacing (not that I've ever actually panned for gold, but I think that's more or less how it works). Appreciation of the state of not suffering, and a realisation of who one's friends are, for example. Ironically, suffering seems to have a bizarre ability to bring happiness.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, maybe I'm just not able to communicate it well enough. There is a particular situation of my own which is making me ask the question, but d***** if I'm going to bring it up on the Ship and get chewed up. It hurts too much when that happens. I'm sorry I can't seem to get the philosophical question across in general terms.
Maybe what you're really wanting is just to vent about the futility of suffering? I get that. Sounds like you agree that all the lame claptrap that's spewed ("suffering makes us stronger", "God has a plan for it" etc etc) is all too often just a bunch of garbage. Yet somehow you're still struggling to find meaning and purpose in whatever you're going thru. That's probably natural-- even if sometimes futile. Sometimes crap is just crap, and there's just no way to pretty that up.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sea of Tranquility:
Perhaps suffering is a bit like panning for gold? You give things a really good shake and find all sorts of truly valuable things surfacing (not that I've ever actually panned for gold, but I think that's more or less how it works). Appreciation of the state of not suffering, and a realisation of who one's friends are, for example. Ironically, suffering seems to have a bizarre ability to bring happiness.
I stand by my comments earlier. Any benefit from suffering comes from: the grace of God in redeeming situations and people or from the compassionate and loving actions of others, or in drawing from us a response (by the grace of God) that is more nobler than we might have believed possible. In your example, I believe the "gold" comes from the compassionate actions of those real "friends" and not from the suffering. I think that makes the grace/redemption/compassion even more precious. Suffering is unpleasant, distressing, hurtful, upsetting and not in the least bit desirable. Grace, redemption and compassion are absolutely desirable at all times but especially when we are suffering.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Maybe what you're really wanting is just to vent about the futility of suffering? I get that. Sounds like you agree that all the lame claptrap that's spewed ("suffering makes us stronger", "God has a plan for it" etc etc) is all too often just a bunch of garbage. Yet somehow you're still struggling to find meaning and purpose in whatever you're going thru. That's probably natural-- even if sometimes futile. Sometimes crap is just crap, and there's just no way to pretty that up.
It's Lamb Chopped's prerogative to be unsatisfied with the answers she's been given but why dismiss them as lame claptrap? Isn't it possible some of the people offering this advice have gone through some real suffering themselves? Isn't it possible that their advice, satisfactory or not, came through experience?
The truth is that we're all quite willing to undergo suffering if the price is right: Submitting to diet and exercise for the perfect figure, submitting to surgery for the perfect face, years of school and corporate grunt work for the perfect career, submitting to endless campaigns and public scrutiny for the perfect position of political power, etc. People find meaning in suffering quite easily when it comes to material ends.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
[The truth is that we're all quite willing to undergo suffering if the price is right: Submitting to diet and exercise for the perfect figure, submitting to surgery for the perfect face, years of school and corporate grunt work for the perfect career, submitting to endless campaigns and public scrutiny for the perfect position of political power, etc. People find meaning in suffering quite easily when it comes to material ends.
Hmmm. I ought really to let Lamb Chopped clarify if it's what she meant but I don't recognise your examples as suffering. For me each example you give is one of something where we submit ourselves to self-discipline, hard-work and foregoing short-term comfort/pleasure for long-term gain. I don't think that constitutes true suffering - that for me is something external imposed on us that we would never choose.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I don't mind if both get discussed on this thread at all; they tend to overlap, don't they? I mean, the area in which I'm suffering right now is one where theoretically I could escape tomorrow; but the price that would come with the escape is presently too high to pay. So is my suffering voluntary, or involuntary? Gets kinda fuzzy.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
[The truth is that we're all quite willing to undergo suffering if the price is right: Submitting to diet and exercise for the perfect figure, submitting to surgery for the perfect face, years of school and corporate grunt work for the perfect career, submitting to endless campaigns and public scrutiny for the perfect position of political power, etc. People find meaning in suffering quite easily when it comes to material ends.
Hmmm. I ought really to let Lamb Chopped clarify if it's what she meant but I don't recognise your examples as suffering. For me each example you give is one of something where we submit ourselves to self-discipline, hard-work and foregoing short-term comfort/pleasure for long-term gain. I don't think that constitutes true suffering - that for me is something external imposed on us that we would never choose.
The self-discipline and the hard work are merely the context, reasoning and justification behind the suffering. The suffering of diet and exercise lies in the hunger, exhaustion and injuries, the suffering of cosmetic surgery lies in the cutting of the body, the scarring, etc; the suffering of the academic and professional career lies in the mental suffering, stress, the pressure, the potential loneliness, and their physical manifestations in things like insomnia, depression, alcoholism, etc.
Like in other things there are different degrees of suffering, from very minor ones, like when I miss elevensies and second breakfast, to major ones like sickness and physical injury but they're all sufferings of a kind. The odds are most of us reading this tend to suffer the first kind more often ( see the First World Problems thread in heaven ) but these are differences of ( sometimes very great and silly) degrees.
If suffering were true only when it is externally imposed upon us then that is liable to lay blame on the sufferer because one can always fault that person's choices for his predicament.
I have no idea what prompted Lamb Chopped's thread and I don't ask why and as I've written it's her prerogative to judge the advice she see's however she thinks best but it is indeed the Christian tradition to find meaning in suffering. It's the invitation to take up the cross.
St. Josemaria Escrivá wrote that there are times when these crosses come unbidden, like the encounter of Simon of Cyrene with Jesus. We can walk away if possible, or we can declare the pain to be an illusion, or we can rage like the other thief crucified with Jesus. We can also accompany Jesus on his walk towards Calvary. The saints urge the latter choice.
P.S.
Let me just emphasize again that I don't write this to discourage anyone from using common sense and looking at things objectively and resolving their problems. I'm not saying: don't go see the doctor, don't resign your job, don't sign the petition. I'm just saying that if one does find oneself in that situation where there's no easy way out there is still value in that person's suffering before the problem is resolved, whether it gets resolved or not.
[ 23. November 2013, 20:40: Message edited by: Pancho ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Maybe what you're really wanting is just to vent about the futility of suffering? I get that. Sounds like you agree that all the lame claptrap that's spewed ("suffering makes us stronger", "God has a plan for it" etc etc) is all too often just a bunch of garbage. Yet somehow you're still struggling to find meaning and purpose in whatever you're going thru. That's probably natural-- even if sometimes futile. Sometimes crap is just crap, and there's just no way to pretty that up.
It's Lamb Chopped's prerogative to be unsatisfied with the answers she's been given but why dismiss them as lame claptrap? Isn't it possible some of the people offering this advice have gone through some real suffering themselves? Isn't it possible that their advice, satisfactory or not, came through experience?
In answer to your question-- obviously when I dismissed them as "claptrap" I was simply offering my 2 cents, cuz that's what we do here, worth about what you paid for it. But I do think you may be misreading what I was saying. I'm certainly not meaning to discount other people's experiences of finding meaning or God's blessing in suffering. Rather, I was simply echoing Jammy Dodger's observation that those blessings are the result of God's grace working in and thru suffering-- but not an indication (IMHO) that the suffering itself was caused or allowed for that purpose. IMHO some (not all) suffering is entirely unnecessary, the futility of it makes the suffering all the worse. Suggesting (not that anyone has) that the suffering exists to serve some "greater good" only creates an additional burden and seems to make God the author of evil. That is not the case, though, for all suffering.
As for Lamb Chopped's view, if you'll reread the context, you'll see I was not at all trying to represent her views but rather fishing around trying to understand them better.
ymmv
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
It seems to me that there are strong and weak models re God being involved in suffering.
Strong: God inflicts things on us to teach us and purify us in some mysterious or obvious ways.
Weak: God doesn't inflict things on us to make us suffer but will use them teach us and purify us etc.
I find both of these offensive. Because in the strong model, God is a bastard and mean. In the weak one God's like scavenger waiting to clean up the carcass. (I can't develop my thinking fully about this just now as I have an appointment, as the strong and weak thing just occurred to me, but I probably learned it from someone else.)
But this is what I'm thinking: suffering is not about God, it is mostly about other people doing bad shit, and about a flawed creation doing shit in whatever mix of God and natural history you prefer. People and creation following their natures at least to an extent.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
But this is what I'm thinking: suffering is not about God, it is mostly about other people doing bad shit, and about a flawed creation doing shit in whatever mix of God and natural history you prefer. People and creation following their natures at least to an extent.
Yes, that's what I was trying (perhaps flailing) to say.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
I haven't abandoned this thread, I just need time to think things over and compose replies to the last couple of posts.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
But this is what I'm thinking: suffering is not about God, it is mostly about other people doing bad shit, and about a flawed creation doing shit in whatever mix of God and natural history you prefer. People and creation following their natures at least to an extent.
Yes, that's what I was trying (perhaps flailing) to say.
Although, a traditional counter to that from atheists has been to question the role of God's creativity. Did he create this universe or not? If he did, why not create something less shitty, like heaven?
One counter to that is that God creates a material universe, with all the attendant aspects to it, so that we end up with pain and death, which are in fact, beneficial in evolutionary terms.
I suppose then the reply might be, why create a material universe then, if it's leading to so much pain?
Because it's good overall?
(Don't forget the fall).
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
But that is a fail. The best, and truly only rational stance a Christian might employ is ignorance. The puzzle will not complete and only missing pieces can make it match the picture on the box.
Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on
:
I've been re-reading this thread and pondering again. I should start by saying that whilst I have been very active on this thread I am usually reluctant to make pronouncements on suffering as almost anything you say can sound trite and disrespectful to those in the thick of it.
Having said that I'm going to anyway because this thread has genuinely made me think.
So first off - there is an element of mystery. How can we understand suffering, how can we reconcile this with a loving God? I'm not sure there is any neat answer or systematic response that is wholly satisfying, as lilbuddha says:
quote:
The puzzle will not complete and only missing pieces can make it match the picture on the box.
And to quetzalcoatl's point: why did God create the universe this way? How does that work? It appears to be another mystery. (btw quetzalcoatl I think you and I had a discussion about this on another thread about whether the way the universe is, I.e. allowing bad stuff to happen, is required in order for us to truly have free will - but that isn't a wholly satisfactory answer and I don't want to hijack this thread with that debate - the other Calvinism threads have done that to death).
Maybe it's not supposed to make sense, Evensong gave us this quote:
quote:
Voltaire sees only the terrible truth that the actual history of suffering and death is not morally intelligible. Dostoevsky sees—and this bespeaks both his moral genius and his Christian view of reality—that it would be far more terrible if it were.
Having said that there is a recognisable phenomenon of good coming from suffering (not always). I suggested this was as a result of grace/redemption rather than the suffering having any inherent value.
However, re-reading the thread I noticed that Lamb Chopped's questions were arising from her current (understandably unspecified) situation. It made me think again... Where does that leave us when in a situation of suffering especially when we can see no redeeming possibilities? Also Lamb Chopped you asked a question that I don't think has been answered:
quote:
But back to the idea of value in suffering--somebody upthread spoke of "joining your suffering to that of Christ." I've heard that idea before, but don't really know what it means. Is it anything more than "I am part of the body of Christ, so when I suffer, he suffers"? Is it some sort of mental act? What exactly is it?
I've never heard of this idea of joining your suffering to Christ? Can anyone shed any light?
What it made me think of was: how Jesus reacted when he was suffering. In the Garden of Gethsemane he prayed:
quote:
Father, all things are possible for you. Take this cup away from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.
Is this what joining our suffering to Christ means? I think it is reasonable to say that if we are suffering prayer number 1 is: "Lord, please take this away."
Or maybe in the circumstances mentioned above where we may have some element of choice: "Lord give me the wisdom to know when to get out of this situation" (rather than continue being treated as a doormat).
Then (and I am in no way suggesting that our suffering is the same as Christ's or had the same effect) there is a sense in which Jesus continued on and choose the path of suffering because it was going to lead to redemption.
Should we ever pray: "Lord if my suffering can bring redemption/something good then your will be done"?
Finally sometimes things just suck. There is no redemption that we can see and God does not remove the suffering. In this situation all we can pray for is God's grace and comfort. There's an old hymn:
quote:
He giveth more grace when the burdens grow greater,
He sendeth more strength when the labors increase,
To added affliction He addeth His mercy,
To multiplied trials, His multiplied peace.
When we have exhausted our store of endurance,
When our strength has failed ere the day is half-done,
When we reach the end of our hoarded resources,
Our Father’s full giving is only begun.
His love has no limit, His grace has no measure,
His power no boundary known unto men,
For out of His infinite riches in Jesus,
He giveth and giveth and giveth again.
Just to make sure no-one thinks that I'm being trite: my Mum requested this at her funeral (after her death from cancer). It was her testimony of God's grace throughout her illness - the worse things got the more she felt God gave her grace to bear it.
Apologies for the mega-long post.
Lamb Chopped - has this thread got anyway close to answering your question(s)?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But that is a fail. The best, and truly only rational stance a Christian might employ is ignorance. The puzzle will not complete and only missing pieces can make it match the picture on the box.
I assume that was addressed to my post. Well, it's all guesswork, isn't it? I suppose some theists argue that it is more than guesswork, but they have to sort of pull themselves up by their bootstraps, don't they? Or, if you like, they produce circular arguments - it's true because I say so.
So when you say 'fail', I'm not sure what you mean. We can't discuss supernatural stuff as if it was natural stuff - that's fundamental. We can only guess, but maybe it's not a blind guess.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I would indeed be glad to have this question answered, if anybody has a clear concept to explain (and maybe a "how to" for the hard of understanding, that being me right now):
quote:
But back to the idea of value in suffering--somebody upthread spoke of "joining your suffering to that of Christ." I've heard that idea before, but don't really know what it means. Is it anything more than "I am part of the body of Christ, so when I suffer, he suffers"? Is it some sort of mental act? What exactly is it?
As for whether this thread has answered my questions, I suppose (no surprise) the answer is "I don't know." It's given me stuff to think about, and I thank you all. But I am pretty much where I was before. And I've got decisions to make that are frankly scary. But then, don't we all?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Lamb Chopped. It's so sad that you cannot share it here, because no matter how much empathy, how much 'Me too.' you'd get, you'd get insane projection too.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
The world operates on physical principals and sometimes those physical principals mean that bad things can happen and people will suffer. Suffering is the inevitable result of living in a physical world as opposed to a spiritual realm.
That God understands our suffering and suffers with us is demonstrated by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. But, that does not answer your excellent question LC. It just states the premise from which I hope to provide some thoughts.
Given that there will be suffering, the question is then what value the suffering has. My answer to that is suffering has the value we give it. To me there is no eternal, fixed, value to suffering up in Heaven upon which we may model our response to suffering. That we have free will speaks to the fact that our responses to suffering are necessarily going to be different according to our experiences and values in life.
To me, the value of suffering is the value we take from suffering. If we take suffering to be a time to bring ourselves closer to God who suffers with us we have brought from suffering a gem of inestimable value. If we have taken a moral lesson from suffering we have the advantage of a hard won lesson in morals.
If we see suffering and see the nature of God in how our fellow humans respond to that suffering with assistance and prayer, we have learned to see our fellow humans as the beloved children of God that they are.
If we see people cause suffering and see them only as bad, instead of erring and still beloved children of God, we have more to learn and perhaps still can learn after reflection.
So, in the end, we can gain as much value out of all experiences, including suffering, as we are willing to gain from those experiences. At least in my opinion.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
I haven't abandoned this thread, I just need time to think things over and compose replies to the last couple of posts.
I must apologize. I know I wrote this two months ago but as I mentioned in All Saints, I had a family emergency.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I would indeed be glad to have this question answered, if anybody has a clear concept to explain (and maybe a "how to" for the hard of understanding, that being me right now):
quote:
But back to the idea of value in suffering--somebody upthread spoke of "joining your suffering to that of Christ." I've heard that idea before, but don't really know what it means. Is it anything more than "I am part of the body of Christ, so when I suffer, he suffers"? Is it some sort of mental act? What exactly is it?
Lamb Chopped, I'll try to explain somehow what I meant. I'm not sure I can do it adequately and keep in mind I'm coming at this as a Catholic layman and I'm not a theologian or a spiritual director.
It does have something to do with being a part of the Mystical Body of Christ and because we are joined to him through baptism we have a share somehow in his redemptive act as members of His Body.
I think it also has to do with the "priesthood of the faithful". In the Catechism of the Catholic Church" it says:
quote:
1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father." 20 The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood." 21
What this means in practical terms for myself is that I make conscious offerings of myself to God nearly everyday, usually through prayer and sometimes through physical acts. It's a mental act because the offering is an act of the will and it can sometimes involve meditation on mysteries of the faith such as Christ's Passion but they can even be emotional or physical acts as when I'm moved by a passage of the Bible or when I give up something for Lent.
The main way I make this conscious offering of myself to God is at Mass but also through what Catholic's call the Daily or Morning Offering where one offers one's daily life and struggles to Jesus. There are also individual moments of the day or life in general where one offer this or that to God, both moments of unasked-for suffering and acts of self-denial.
It's a way of becoming living sacrifices and living out the words of Psalm 51(50):17 :
quote:
"The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."
and 1 Peter 2:5:
quote:
...and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
As the prayer to which I linked above says, this applies not just to suffering but the rest of life such as our works and joys.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
Thanks Tortuf for that very thoughtful reply to the OP.
I must confess to not being able to speak from much experience, apart from personal tragedy, which makes me reluctant to add to this thread.
A thought that came into my mind however is that Suffering is part of God's nature as well as Love, Creativity, Joy, a sense of Justice, and more that I cannot name.
As we are created in the image of God then suffering will be part of our experience of being God-like.
I suppose the evil in our nature does stem from free will as most seem to agree.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Tortuf-shadeson. Most valued. Thank you. We all seem to hold back on sharing our suffering.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0