Why does a good God promote suffering?

[MarkBastable]

while there are THOUSANDS of protestant denominations, catholicism only exhibits two (if i understand correctly). there must be a reason for this unity...

In the case of Roman Catholicism, the reason is the authority of the Vatican, exercised through the infallibility of the Pope.

You seem to think that that's a Good Thing, and that the nonconformists' diverse interpretations of Christian precepts are a Bad Thing - which, of course, is a perfectly valid opinion. But there are those who would argue exactly the opposite.

However, stepping back a little and looking at Christianity overall, the differences between the (Roman) Catholic Church and other Christian demoninations are tiny, compared to the differences between all the monotheistic faiths.

And the differences between the monotheistic faiths are pretty small compared to the differences between all of them and the multitheistic faiths.

And the differences between all faiths are insignificant compared to the differences between faith and lack of it.

And even the lack of it has no real defining characteristic except that - so there's a lot of difference there too.

So I don't think that, in terms of the practice of faith, the little differences between Roman Catholicism and other Christian sects really matter. However, one of the appeals of Catholicism (Roman or otherwise) is certainly the showbiz element - the ritual, the incense, the formality of process and symbolism. I guess that's as good a reason as any to choose that form of Christianity.

My wife - who was brought up a Catholic - was told that eternal damnation awaits anyone who calls themselves a Christian but doesn't recognise the unquestioned authority of the Pope. Even now she isn't entirely sure that nonconformist marriage ceremonies really count, because there's not enough stained-glass and men-in-frocks about the place. My mother - who was brought up a strict non-conformist - was told that if she ever attended a Catholic Mass, she would go to hell, because it was the work of the devil. Even now, she's not completely at ease around crucifixes, which come under the broad heading of 'graven images'.

[G L Wilson]

If you take away the smoke and mirrors from Christianity, you are just left with a lot of mumbo jumbo.

[MarkBastable]

If you take away the smoke and mirrors from Christianity, you are just left with a lot of mumbo jumbo.

I can't see that that kind of blasé, adolescent throwaway really advances the discussion at all. I mean, what would have been lost had you decided, having typed it, not to hit 'Send'?

[dwdean]

My wife - who was brought up a Catholic - was told that eternal damnation awaits anyone who calls themselves a Christian but doesn't recognise the unquestioned authority of the Pope. Even now she isn't entirely sure that nonconformist marriage ceremonies really count, because there's not enough stained-glass and men-in-frocks about the place. My mother - who was brought up a strict non-conformist - was told that if she ever attended a Catholic Mass, she would go to hell, because it was the work of the devil. Even now, she's not completely at ease around crucifixes, which come under the broad heading of 'graven images'.

im not saying that one is wrong while the other is correct. catholicism has two denominations, protestant christianity exists in thousands. that is my point.

on the other hand, MarkBast, i was brought up similarly to your mother. i have attended a protestant church since birth. my mother, who was catholic for many years, swears that catholicism is simply wrong. i do believe that calling any human (the pope) infallible is ridiculous. i promise you, the guy makes mistakes. but then again the catholics would say that those who take the Bible alone as infallible truth are sadly mistaken.
religion... its tricky.

[G L Wilson]

I can't see that that kind of blasé, adolescent throwaway really advances the discussion at all. I mean, what would have been lost had you decided, having typed it, not to hit 'Send'?

Human beings suffer for no reason, no reason at all.

[Delta40]

Human beings suffer for no reason, no reason at all.

so do animals and the environment. Are you thinking we're special or something?

[MarkBastable]

I can't see that that kind of blasé, adolescent throwaway really advances the discussion at all. I mean, what would have been lost had you decided, having typed it, not to hit 'Send'?

Human beings suffer for no reason, no reason at all.

I can't see that that kind of blasé, adolescent throwaway really advances the discussion at all. I mean, what would have been lost had you decided, having typed it, not to hit 'Send'?

[G L Wilson]

It is certainly not blase whatever it might be.

[Varenne Rodin]

It's very arrogant of people to insist that their speculations of a god's motivations are based on any type of logic whatsoever. If god/gods exist, we don't know him/her/them or their possible motivations and capabilities, and as of right now we have no way of gaining said knowledge. To pretend to know only assigns our own imagined motivations to the potential actions of deities, thus elevating ourselves to the supposed mental plane/s of deities. This line of speculation is purely egotistical, unless it's being used to illustrate how much sense "God" does not make, in which case: fantastic!

[MarkBastable]

It's very arrogant of people to insist that their speculations of a god's motivations are based on any type of logic whatsoever. If god/gods exist, we don't know him/her/them or their possible motivations and capabilities, and as of right now we have no way of gaining said knowledge. To pretend to know only assigns our own imagined motivations to the potential actions of deities, thus elevating ourselves to the supposed mental plane/s of deities. This line of speculation is purely egotistical, unless it's being used to illustrate how much sense "God" does not make, in which case: fantastic!

That seems to suggest that human beings are not capable of knowing the mind of God.

[Varenne Rodin]

That seems to suggest that human beings are not capable of knowing the mind of God.

Definitely, Mark. To know the mind of a God, one would have to be a God. Now that's a nice fantasy. Maybe we're all gods and we're fleshing out this saga of what motivates the one mega god we've conjured. Or maybe we've all always been gods. Accidentally expanding the universe the way some people accidentally make babies. It's a fantastic mystery with endless possibilities. The possibilities don't begin and end at this one god of men. Doing a bunch of guesswork within the confines of this one story, this one idea, and passing judgments on other humans because we assume it's the will of THE god, well, pardon me for saying so, but that is ludicrous.

[billl]

Basically, if someone (or something) manages to acquire/develop power superior to our own, and then behaves in ways we find unjustifiable, we should just go ahead and worship them, because they must've created everything, even the world they were born into. Anyhow, I think that's the formula that the mystics take, before becoming Vichy-reality-based tools.

[MarkBastable]

Definitely, Mark. To know the mind of a God, one would have to be a God.

Precisely. So the thrust of my argument isn't about whether or not human beings can understand the workings of God's mind. Let's agree we can't.

The question is whether or not that's any way to run a universe - whether it's fair to set up a cosmos in that way. And that matters - to me at least -because if he's created us in such a way that we are incapable of understanding him, it'd be capricious to judge us within the structure of that set-up.

Hence this...

Having created children who are incapable of comprehending him, he has no one to blame but himself if they don't get it. If I were a bright orange god who smelled strongly of celery, it'd be pretty unsporting of me to create blind creatures with no noses, and then to blame them for not being able to find me.

...which is the point I was hoping would be addressed by someone who does believe that that is a fair way to run a universe.

[Varenne Rodin]

Precisely. So the thrust of my argument isn't about whether or not human beings can understand the workings of God's mind. Let's agree we can't.

The question is whether or not that's any way to run a universe - whether it's fair to set up a cosmos in that way. And that matters - to me at least -because if he's created us in such a way that we are incapable of understanding him, it'd be capricious to judge us within the structure of that set-up.

Hence this...



...which is the point I was hoping would be addressed by someone who does believe that that is a fair way to run a universe.

Pretty cool, Mark. I somehow missed that comment before. Very smartly stated. Why do people worship this invisible, incoherent idea? If any of the gods envisioned by man are real, those gods either have severe mental problems, or zero ability to interact with our reality.

[Paulclem]

The Buddha's experience of Gods was that there are a number of them who live greatly extended lives-eons long- of divine comfort, but who are themselves subject to birth ageing sickness and death. The delusion the foremost of them has - referred to as Brahma, but this is pre-christian, (which raises interesting possibilities), is that they created the universe.

The idea that there is a God realm would seem to account for the different views of Gods that cultures have, and for the different sets of them - Norse, Greek, Hindu, the God vengeful of the Hebrews etc.

The Buddha's claim also sugests that it is possible to know the minds of Gods and that they're not so Divine as they think but subject to Karma just the same as any being. From the Buddha's point of view then, as they too suffer, they need to be viewed with compassion.