Philosophically Speaking, "Is Suffering a Challenge to God's Existence?"

[Pompey Bum]

I pick and choose what parts I want to accept much like the Redactor did. I don't even mind modifying them.

Harold Bloom thought J (or Bathsheba, as he suggested) was a comic author. I can see that in the way David Rosenberg translated the fall in "The Book of J". Yahweh took a rib from Adam and created Eve. After they ate the fruit, she was punished with "pain increasing, groans that spread into groans: having children will be labor". That didn't stop her from seeing the bright side of things. After she had her first son, she didn't complain about the pain as Yahweh predicted, but remarked with an evident sense of accomplishment, "I have created a man as Yahweh has."

It seems to me that our approaches differ in this way: I am saying, Well, there's the story, I wonder what they were referring to; while you are saying, Well, there's the story, I wonder where I can take it from there in terms of other stories I find meaningful (as you say, leaving out and modifying what you like). A third approach would be literalist: that story is clear and self-interpreting; accepting it as historical is the same thing as having faith (and since justification is by faith alone...figure it out). A fourth would be doctrinal: Well, there's the story, now what do the church authorities say it means (or even dogmatic: what do church officials say I must believe it to mean)?

There are pros and cons to each of these approaches, although personally I don't find them benignly equal. As I said before, there is nothing simple about Biblical text, its history of redaction, or its historical context; and in practice Biblical literalism becomes a bogus litmus test for having faith. For me, faith in God is simply not the same as faith that every story in the Bible is literally true.

Your approach is called midrashic. It was popular among Jewish scholars in the Middle Ages, and still has some practitioners today. The Rabbis, of course, wouldn't have compared texts Hebrew and Tantric texts, but their attempt to generate further meaning by comparing texts was essentially the same as your approach.

The best known midrash in modern pop culture (because it was seized on by feminists a few years ago) is the story of Lilith, supposedly Adam's first wife, who would not submit to his authority. The texts in question were Genesis 1:24-1:27 (the P version of Creation); Genesis 2:18-2:23 (the J version, written down 400 years earlier, and likely even older); and Isaiah 34:14, which is difficult to date, but is centuries younger than J in any case. In the J version, God creates Adam by breathing into dust, and later creates Eve from his rib to act as his helper:

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

But in the P version, God creates the Eve and Adam simultaneously, presumably from the same original substance, and arguably coequal:

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, lafter our likeness: mand let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

This apparent discrepancy (Medieval Jewish scholars had never heard of P or J) was resolved by going to a third text, in which Isaiah uses the Hebrew word lilit, perhaps a reference to Assyrian demon (or an owl--or perhaps the demon and the owl were the same creature). Modern translators have a difficult time with lilit, but Medieval Jewish scholars identified it with a female demon who, through midrashic speculation, became Adam's ex-wife, who had been created his equal not his helper, and who is never specifically identified as Eve. Some modern feminists have seen Lilith as cool and pagan (even through the midrash is, you know, pretty Jewish).

You are free to build bridges in this way, as you do here:

I see this story as Eve offering to Adam sex through the apple. It is interesting that Adam does not come up with this idea to eat the apple first and offer it to Eve. There is a similar (at least to me) story of Shakti (female) trying to get Shiva (male) to stop his self-indulgent meditations and do his job and create the universe. She has a hard time convincing him, but ultimately she succeeds...

...So where does evil come from? It might be an illusion. If that is the case there is no need to blame someone for it. That does not mean we should not act to remove suffering and be content with meditating as Shiva was.

Midrash is not my approach, but I find it no less logical than the Frankenstein Bible that literalists concoct by, for example, pretending that Genesis 2:18-2:2 is just a continuation of Genesis 2:18-2:23, and not a different story representing a somewhat different perspective. And both approaches, whatever their flaws, can potentially produce meaning for those who employ them. As always, problems start when some try to push their interpretations (including "literalist" interpretation) as the only way to look at things. You will get no objection from me to your holding a more optimistic view than I do about the material world. But when you start telling me or others that our suffering does or did not exist, you have crossed the same literalists cross who cast those who do not accept Biblical literalism into hell: you are exporting your own dogma and expecting someone else to take it seriously.

For me, the story of the Fall is a pessimistic one. Your "appeal to Bloom" (as it were) to try to turn it into a comedy is cute, by the way, but not very compelling. Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis (which Bloom was cribbing in The Book of J) is a historical-critical theory that has of been tweaked considerably in recent years. Nowadays not many historical-critical scholars see J, P, D, and E the products of individual writers or redactors. Rather, they are seen as theological tendencies or schools of thought identifiable to certain priestly, prophetic, or scholarly communities overseeing redaction of earlier sources, in close association with events in Israelite and Judaean history: the establishment of the monarchy and construction of the First Temple for J; the destruction of the northern kingdom for E; Josiah's (failed) attempt at the restoration of Judea as a regional power for D; and the Babylonian Captivity for P; and not comedy or tragedy in the Greek (much less the modern) sense. It is not surprising to find some humor in texts with oral antecedents (including funny stories), but that does not turn the story of the Fall into Ghost Busters. Nor is it surprising to find a pessimistic worldview in the ancient Levant: the predominant cultures and political empires from Mesopotamia had an even bleaker assessment of things

So for me, it is not a question of how to turn a pessimistic mythos into one that always looks on the bright side of life. It is an inquiry--both rational and spiritual--about why the story takes such a negative outlook (does it capture something about the human condition, independent of Mesopotamian pessimism? Does it offer a extra-material basis for Salvation (which Mesopotamian pessimism did not)? How do I understand any such Salvation in the light of Christian experience and my own life?

I could easily connect dots between stories I know to construct something new to cheer for a position I already hold. (That is essentially my problem with midrashic speculation and one of my many problems with Biblical literalism). But my approach (for me) has the integrity of a real investigation. I find I honor Scripture best when I treat it as a revered and challenging teacher, and not a magical book of things people want to hear. Even so, it is necessary for all of us to see these things in the light that God gives us to see them.

[Pompey Bum]

I mainly know the album "Blue". There is "Both Sides Now" from an earlier album and "Help Me" From "Court and Spark" that I remember.

I've started listening to other Joni Mitchell albums. Yesterday's was "Both Sides Now" (2000)

The best songs on this album were the two she wrote: "A Case of You" and "Both Sides, Now". The others were old love songs. She was singing them in a bluesy-jazzy way that made me realize that what I like about her songs is not the music so much as the lyrics.
Another thing that struck me is that she seemed to think these songs fit together in terms of quality or why would she put them into one album? That made me wonder if she felt the same way about her songs as her fans do. I would not have matched these songs together.

Well, Both Sides Now (the album, not the single) was pretty late and somewhat atypical. In the 70s, Mitchell used to use something called open tuning (I think), which is like playing and singing out of tune but in one's own consistent musical universe, giving her songs (especially her voice) that weird but beautiful sound of hers. (I wish Lykren were here--he'd probably be able to describe what I'm talking about--come back, man! )

Anyway, the distinction you make between her music and poetry is interesting. Blue does it both ways, but much of what followed it had a lot to do with her own wacky beat-ish poetry (like Don Juan's Reckless Daughter, which you said you didn't like that much). There were still album artists in the '70s ('80s capitalism hadn't killed them yet), and most of Mitchell's records from that time were mostly for listening to the lyrics. She would still write pop songs from time to time, apparently because record producers made her. She tells a hilarious story on a live recording about writing You Turn Me On I'm a Radio because she hoped it would seduce disk jockeys into playing the single (and in that context, it's a pretty funny song). Unfortunately the pop-ish songs are all most of the kiddies know of her work anymore.

Check out the difference in style and poetry (and especially the attitude toward women and marriage) between these two songs:

This is the hippie line from Blue in 1970 ("We don't need no piece of paper from the city hall" and all that):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UgsqNRSOSwM

And this is only six years later, writing in that beat-ish poetry of hers, but singing quite a different tune:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rG0kNny3WlY

And since I sense you prefer the pre-beat poet stuff, here is an early stage performance (in London, apparently) from the Blue/Just Before Blue era. It really captures that weirdly beautiful off-tune voice of hers:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LoKBGotuNhc

[YesNo]

Anyway, the distinction you make between her music and poetry is interesting. Blue does it both ways, but much of what followed it had a lot to do with her own wacky beat-ish poetry (like Don Juan's Reckless Daughter, which you said you didn't like that much). There were still album artists in the '70s ('80s capitalism hadn't killed them yet), and most of Mitchell's records from that time were mostly for listening to the lyrics. She would still write pop songs from time to time, apparently because record producers made her. She tells a hilarious story on a live recording about writing You Turn Me On I'm a Radio because she hoped it would seduce disk jockeys into playing the single (and in that context, it's a pretty funny song). Unfortunately the pop-ish songs are most of the kiddies know of her anymore.

The up-side of being popular is that it is influential. I only know her most popular songs.

Check out the difference in style and poetry (and especially the attitude toward women and marriage) between these two songs:

This is the hippie line from Blue in 1970 ("We don't need no piece of paper from the city hall" and all that):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UgsqNRSOSwM

And this is only six years later, writing in that beat-ish poetry of hers, but singing quite a different tune:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rG0kNny3WlY

Here are the lyrics to "Song for Sharon": http://www.metrolyrics.com/song-for-...-mitchell.html They make more immediate sense than "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter", however, I don't sense the freshness in the ideas she expressed that her more popular songs had.

It seems like her attitude toward women and marriage is similar between the two periods. As she mentioned in "California", I expect her to be always "strung out on another man". There is a certain charm to that childish flightiness, but it gets old which is what I pick up in "Song for Sharon".

Here is a verse from "Song for Sharon" that reminded me of another thread about a woman asking for purification from Mohammed after committing adultery. She wanted to be stoned. Mitchell puts what I think is the same yearning in terms of suicide:

A woman I knew just drowned herself
The well was deep and muddy
She was just shaking off futility
Or punishing somebody

At least she isn't asking Mohammed to defile himself so she can be purified. The need for purification might be what brings this back to the OP. Is the existence of situations that make a person consider suicide the result of a suffering that would make one question the existence of a good God? By the way, animals commit suicide as well.

And since I sense you prefer the pre-beat poet stuff, here is an early stage performance (in London, apparently) from the Blue/Just Before Blue era. It really captures that weirdly beautiful off-tune voice of hers:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LoKBGotuNhc

Nice concert. I don't know what the "off-tune voice" means, but I do like the way she sings.

[Pompey Bum]

The up-side of being popular is that it is influential. I only know her most popular songs.

As I said, this is a funny self-conscious attempt to write a hit:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ByhiLftL1bE

Here's another pop-ish Mitchell tune you may like. It was from The Hissing of Summer Lawns, which was one of the first beat-ish album, so they probably told her to write it. It catches something about being a teenager, though.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7De3WgHas7U

Here are the lyrics to "Song for Sharon": http://www.metrolyrics.com/song-for-...-mitchell.html They make more immediate sense than "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter", however, I don't sense the freshness in the ideas she expressed that her more popular songs had.

I wonder if what you are really missing is the catchy melody of a pop song rather than freshness of ideas. But either way, you are entitled to your tastes. I prefer Don Juan's Reckless Daughter (although I like this song, too) precisely because you have to mull over its lyrics a little more. Considering what Mitchell meant helps me to understand how I personally understand some of the same issues. For me, that's more important than having a catchy tune to hum. "Kick off the sand flies, honey, the love keeps flowing" is a hilarious line that brings me a teenage memory of kissing girls on the beach while the bugs were eating us alive, but it doesn't do much more than that for me.

It seems like her attitude toward women and marriage is similar between the two periods.

I disagree. The song was written for a childhood friend, and these verses speak of the fascination (ambiguous for the adult Mitchell) that young girls feel about brides, weddings, wedding gowns, etc.:

I went to Staten Island.
To buy myself a mandolin
And I saw the long white dress of love
On a storefront mannequin
Big boat chuggin' back with a belly full of cars
All for something lacy
Some girl's going to see that dress
And crave that day like crazy...

When we were kids in Maidstone, Sharon
I went to every wedding in that little town
To see the tears and the kisses
And the pretty lady in the white lace wedding gown
And walking home on the railroad tracks
Or swinging on the playground swing
Love stimulated my illusions
More than anything

And when I went skating after Golden Reggie
You know it was white lace I was chasing
Chasing dreams
Mama's nylons underneath my cowgirl jeans
He showed me first you get the kisses
And then you get the tears
But the ceremony of the bells and lace
Still veils this reckless fool here

I don't know if "Golden Reggie" was the kid who got her pregnant, but her wish for a Wedding Day (as opposed to a husband per se) is being remembered in bittersweet way. I compare that to the sentimental free love ditty, My Old Man: "We don't need no piece of paper from the City Hall keeping us tied and true," etc.-- a sentiment many modern women have since figured out was more or less the boy's version of the same fantasy ("I don't want a husband, I want a Wedding Day" vs. "I don't wan't a wife, I want to get laid"). Somewhere between 1970 and 1976, it seems to me, Mitchell noted the discrepancy. I think that, and Mitchell's own frustrations in finding a lasting love, is what the song is about (the latter is a frequent theme in her poetry). I love the verse about going to the Gypsy and watching 18 bucks go up in smoke, by the way. I think it would cost more expensive nowadays!

Here is a verse from "Song for Sharon" that reminded me of another thread about a woman asking for purification from Mohammed after committing adultery. She wanted to be stoned. Mitchell puts what I think is the same yearning in terms of suicide:

A woman I knew just drowned herself
The well was deep and muddy
She was just shaking off futility
Or punishing somebody

I took those verses differently, too. To me, they just say: who knows why she did it? Maybe she had given up on life, or maybe she wanted to make someone feel guilty. The point was that everyone was buzzing about it because that kind of desperation wasn't really all that far from any of their lives. So:

My friends were calling up all day yesterday
All emotions and abstractions
It seems we all live so close to that line
And so far from satisfaction

Is the existence of situations that make a person consider suicide the result of a suffering that would make one question the existence of a good God?

My experience with suicide (one adult neighbor, two neighbor's teenage sons, one colleague's 20-something son, and a close friend) is that every event was a hate-motivated act of violence directed at a spouse or parent--to devastating and I mean devastating effect. Talk about suffering! I understand that there are other motives, too. Sometimes soldiers (and others) see what humans are like in their evolutionary state and decide they don't want to stick around. Sometimes people have chronic agonizing physical pain. Some are just really depressed. None of that changes what I have already said about faith in God despite not understanding suffering.

By the way, animals commit suicide as well.

To torture their zookeepers, no doubt. (Sorry).

And that brings me to the OP. Do we really know what someone else is suffering? There are some cases where it seems obvious, but in most cases I wonder. Do we really know suffering at all?

Would you like me to tell you what a bone marrow biopsy feels like? I imagine having your head cut off with a knife is a little like that, although it would take longer. Being left to die on a cross is harder for me to imagine, but the pain of being nailed to it is not. On the whole, I think people know what feels like to suffer.

[YesNo]

As I said, this is a funny self-conscious attempt to write a hit:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ByhiLftL1bE

Here's another pop-ish Mitchell tune you may like. It was from The Hissing of Summer Lawns, which was one of the first beat-ish album, so they probably told her to write it. It catches something about being a teenager, though.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7De3WgHas7U

Here are the lyrics to "You Turn Me On, I'm a Radio": http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/joni+mi..._20075399.html

Here are the lyrics to "In France They Kiss on Main Street": http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/joni+mi..._20075353.html

What both of these lack is "heart", but they try to make up for that with specific details.

I don't know who the "they" are that you refer to. Based on the first part of this interview, it seems that she is calling the shots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HajWhhXkfYQ

That may be the problem. One needs to approach an album or a book as a team marketing project.

I wonder if what you are really missing is the catchy melody of a pop song rather than freshness of ideas. But either way, you are entitled to your tastes. I prefer Don Juan's Reckless Daughter (although I like this song, too) precisely because you have to mull over its lyrics a little more. Considering what Mitchell meant helps me to understand how I personally understand some of the same issues. For me, that's more important than having a catchy tune to hum. "Kick off the sand flies, honey, the love keeps flowing" is a hilarious line that brings me a teenage memory of kissing girls on the beach while the bugs were eating us alive, but it doesn't do much more than that for me.

If it is the familiar melody why do I not find the two songs you mentioned interesting? They both have that same Joni Mitchell sound.

I disagree. The song was written for a childhood friend, and these verses speak of the fascination (ambiguous for the adult Mitchell) that young girls feel about brides, weddings, wedding gowns, etc.:

I went to Staten Island.
To buy myself a mandolin
And I saw the long white dress of love
On a storefront mannequin
Big boat chuggin' back with a belly full of cars
All for something lacy
Some girl's going to see that dress
And crave that day like crazy...

When we were kids in Maidstone, Sharon
I went to every wedding in that little town
To see the tears and the kisses
And the pretty lady in the white lace wedding gown
And walking home on the railroad tracks
Or swinging on the playground swing
Love stimulated my illusions
More than anything

And when I went skating after Golden Reggie
You know it was white lace I was chasing
Chasing dreams
Mama's nylons underneath my cowgirl jeans
He showed me first you get the kisses
And then you get the tears
But the ceremony of the bells and lace
Still veils this reckless fool here

I don't know if "Golden Reggie" was the kid who got her pregnant, but her wish for a Wedding Day (as opposed to a husband per se) is being remembered in bittersweet way. I compare that to the sentimental free love ditty, My Old Man: "We don't need no piece of paper from the City Hall keeping us tied and true," etc.-- a sentiment many modern women have since figured out was more or less the boy's version of the same fantasy ("I don't want a husband, I want a Wedding Day" vs. "I don't wan't a wife, I want to get laid"). Somewhere between 1970 and 1976, it seems to me, Mitchell noted the discrepancy. I think that, and Mitchell's own frustrations in finding a lasting love, is what the song is about (the latter is a frequent theme in her poetry). I love the verse about going to the Gypsy and watching 18 bucks go up in smoke, by the way. I think it would cost more expensive nowadays!

The lines about the gypsy suggested to me a mean-spirited arrogance. I am neutral about any concern for Mitchell's frustrations about finding a lasting love. I don't know the specific situations well enough. Listening to "River" makes me think she may not be totally innocent.

I took those verses differently, too. To me, they just say: who knows why she did it? Maybe she had given up on life, or maybe she wanted to make someone feel guilty. The point was that everyone was buzzing about it because that kind of desperation wasn't really all that far from any of their lives. So:

My friends were calling up all day yesterday
All emotions and abstractions
It seems we all live so close to that line
And so far from satisfaction

I agree. She is not consciously intending anything with those lines, but it is how I hear them. In the interview I cited above, she thought "Both Sides, Now" was a failure at the time. There is a disconnect between what she thinks she is saying and what people are hearing.

My experience with suicide (one adult neighbor, two neighbor's teenage sons, one colleague's 20-something son, and a close friend) is that every event was a hate-motivated act of violence directed at a spouse or parent--to devastating and I mean devastating effect. Talk about suffering! I understand that there are other motives, too. Sometimes soldiers (and others) see what humans are like in their evolutionary state and decide they don't want to stick around. Sometimes people have chronic agonizing physical pain. Some are just really depressed. None of that changes what I have already said about faith in God despite not understanding suffering.



To torture their zookeepers, no doubt. (Sorry).



Would you like me to tell you what a bone marrow biopsy feels like? I imagine having your head cut off with a knife is a little like that, although it would take longer. Being left to die on a cross is harder for me to imagine, but the pain of being nailed to it is not. On the whole, I think people know what it means to suffer.

Or being burnt at a stake. Or being hanged, drawn and quartered in Merrie Old England. I get it. People suffer. The self-righteousness involved in burning someone at a stake or the self-righteousness involved in trying to avenge that when the political climate turns is also suffering. With self-righteousness comes painful feelings of injustice (more suffering) that one tries to rectify and/or blame others or God for.

The description of suffering in the video in the OP does not go into it deeply enough. The only distinction that is made is between moral evil and natural suffering.

[Pompey Bum]

None of that changes what I have already said about faith in God despite not understanding sufferings

On the whole, I think people know what it means to suffer.

You highlighted those two lines from my post above, so I wanted to point out that the first means not understanding the phenomenon of suffering is light of a benevolent and omnipotent God; while the second means knowing enough about what suffering feels like to recognize it in others. To clarify, I'll change the second one to: On the whole, I think people know what it feels like to suffer.

I don't know who the "they" are that you refer to.

As I said in an earlier post: record company producers. If you think it was marketing, fine.

One needs to approach an album or a book as a team marketing project.

Yup, that's how it goes today. What I love about her best albums, though, is that they were made before artists had completely surrendered to marketers. (Can you imagine Taylor Swift twerking to Don Juan's Reckless Daughter? )

If it is the familiar melody why do I not find the two songs you mentioned interesting? They both have that same Joni Mitchell sound.

Oh I wouldn't know. People like what they like, right?

The lines about the gypsy suggested to me a mean-spirited arrogance.

Oh it's funny. All the magic smoke in a fortune tellers parlor, and hey, there goes my 18 bucks! That's not arrogant. If anything, it's self-deprecating.

Or being burnt at a stake. Or being hanged, drawn and quartered in Merrie Old England. I get it. People suffer. The self-righteousness involved in burning someone at a stake or the self-righteousness involved in trying to avenge that when the political climate turns is also suffering. With self-righteousness comes painful feelings of injustice (more suffering) that one tries to rectify and/or blame others or God for.

I didn't really understand what you were getting at here.

[YesNo]

None of that changes what I have already said about faith in God despite not understanding sufferings

On the whole, I think people know what it means to suffer.

You highlighted those two lines from my post above, so I wanted to point out that the first means not understanding the phenomenon of suffering is light of a benevolent and omnipotent God; while the second means knowing enough about what suffering feels like to recognize it in others. To clarify, I'll change the second one to: On the whole, I think people know what it feels like to suffer.

Yes, I agree. Those passages are not contradictory. I should not have highlighted them

As I said in an earlier post: record company producers. If you think it was marketing, fine.

After watching the first 10 minutes of the interview, I don't think she had anyone forcing her to do anything. She was in control.

There is nothing wrong with record company producers or book publishers. It is good today that we also can self-publish if we cannot get a publisher, but that means we do not work with a professional team. We lose their input. Although I haven't listened to all of Mitchell's albums, what I have listened to recently makes me suspect they are not as good as "Blue". So I ask why? The interview makes me think that Mitchell was not taking advice from others.

Yup, that's how it goes today. What I love about her best albums, though, is that they were made before artists had completely surrendered to marketers. (Can you imagine Taylor Swift twerking to Don Juan's Reckless Daughter? )

I don't mind listening to Taylor Swift. Here are the lyrics to "Blank Space": http://www.directlyrics.com/taylor-s...es-lyrics.html

By comparison, here are the lyrics to "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter": http://www.metrolyrics.com/don-juans...-mitchell.html

I think some reasons Swift's lyrics are more powerful are they are less ambiguous than Mitchell's and they speak to personalities that most people can relate to. Some of the lines are very fresh in the song's context, such as "cause darling I'm a nightmare dressed like a daydream". I can't find any line from Mitchell's song that is so striking. The repetition of "cowards" and "restless" in Mitchell's song are more tedious than memorable and make me think she is preaching. It makes me want to argue with her. I don't mind the kundalini associations, but it doesn't seem like Mitchell knows much more about it than I do and perhaps she is not even writing about it.

I also see credits to three people for Swift's song: Taylor Swift, Max Martin and Johan Shellback. It looks like Swift is more of a team player. One doesn't have to be a team player, but I like to see other people be given credit.

Oh it's funny. All the magic smoke in a fortune tellers parlor, and hey, there goes my 18 bucks! That's not arrogant. If anything, it's self-deprecating.

I do see the potential humor there, but it doesn't strike me as funny. By contrast when she wrote about the redneck on the Grecian isle who kept her camera, she also portrayed him in a positive way. The gypsy was only there to be mocked.

I didn't really understand what you were getting at here.

What I am trying to do is bring the thread back to suffering and the argument against a loving God because of the existence of suffering.

I think the logical arguments claiming that suffering cannot disprove the existence of a loving God are fine but they are ineffectual because the argument against God is not a rational but an emotional argument. The emotion is self-righteousness. One can logically argue that self-righteousness has no ground, especially if one is an atheist, but logic won't stop one from being self-righteous. Because of that it is unconvincing.

So one could take Mitchell's inability to find a lasting relationship. That is a form of suffering. Why does she experience it? Can we generate an anti-male argument from that. The anti-male argument would be similar to the anti-God argument and maybe we can learn something about the reaction to suffering from it.

Or one could introduce even more painful suffering and consider people being burnt at the stake for translating the Latin Bible into English during Thomas More's day. (See "God's Bestseller" for the details.) This can lead more quickly to an anti-God argument since both sides of those atrocities see God on their side and have an emotional response to those who are burning.

[mortalterror]

He who learns must suffer. Even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, 'til in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom by the awful grace of God. -Aeschylus

I've always loved that quote. Bobby Kennedy recited it when he informed a crowd of Martin Luther King Jr's assassination. It was a beautiful speech. I wonder if suffering is a gift, a gift to make us like him, a suffering god.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCrx_u3825g

[Pompey Bum]

He who learns must suffer. Even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, 'til in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom by the awful grace of God. -Aeschylus

I'm speechless.

[Pompey Bum]

But then again, never speechless for too long.

All I have to say about Joni Mitchell and Taylor Swift is (as usual) to each his own.

For this part though:

I do see the potential humor there, but it doesn't strike me as funny. By contrast when she wrote about the redneck on the Grecian isle who kept her camera, she also portrayed him in a positive way. The gypsy was only there to be mocked.

...I still think you're missing the point.

There's a gypsy down on Bleecker Street
I went in to see her as a kind of joke
And she lit a candle for my love luck
And eighteen bucks went up in smoke

In other words, my love luck is so bad that even that Gypsy was wasting her time (and my money) over it. It's not a question of whether you believe in fortune tellers helping your love life by lighting magic candles (which I certainly do not, but perhaps you do). I'd feel awful, though, if that poor Gypsy on Bleecker Street had actually felt insulted or mocked by the lyrics; because if there is one thing I have always sought, it's a happy medium. []

What I am trying to do is bring the thread back to suffering and the argument against a loving God because of the existence of suffering.

I think the logical arguments claiming that suffering cannot disprove the existence of a loving God are fine but they are ineffectual because the argument against God is not a rational but an emotional argument.

So on a rational level, they do not preclude the existence of some kind of god. Whether that is a good God, however, must be a matter of faith.

The emotion is self-righteousness. One can logically argue that self-righteousness has no ground, especially if one is an atheist, but logic won't stop one from being self-righteous. Because of that it is unconvincing.

No, this is where you lose me. Many people doubt for reasons other than self-righteousness (it could even be thought of as self-righteous for you to assume so--then where are you? Stuck in an infinite loop! Sounds like a wrong turn to me. But let me give you an example of how doubt that is not self-righteous can work. In my opinion (to be honest rather than boastful) I am more faithful than most men I know of my age. My greatest moments of doubt come with the death of those I love, especially if the death was horrible to them. My low point was 26 years ago, when my Mom died in a lot of pain. Afterwards, for a time, my faith took a vacation. Because my faith is a real thing for me (as opposed to a "Oh gee, wouldn't that be nice!" kind of thing), it is either really there or it really isn't. And It REALLY wasn't. That wasn't a choice or reaction: it was just as a fact. My Mom was gone forever, and I knew it, and it was just the most obvious fact in the world.

In terms of my faith, it was like being paralyzed at the waist and trying to move my legs. There just wasn't a lot to be said about it. But there was no sense of: "Oh God, how I've suffered, and you don't know the half of it, so just don't you talk to me about God's existence, because I'm in pain. So there!" It wasn't like that at all--despite the dumb *ss clergy who had been trained to tell me that it was (and who really just didn't know what the hell else to say). So okay, maybe I was being my usual arrogant self (clergy ARE dumb), but there was nothing self-righteous about it. It was really just me being honest about how I felt.

Feeling that way didn't last forever, thank God. But those days were brought back to me last week when something upsetting happened. Without going into the whole story, I had a close friend--almost a second father--who was around 80; and we had a mutual friend, the daughter of an adult friend, who was a 15 year old Chinese girl. We taught her English and western culture, which she loved; and we all sort of loved each other. So then she got sick and died of a childhood cancer in fairly short order. That was a few years ago, and I've since returned to the States to look after my own aging father. Last week I found out that my old friend had just died, too. I was sad at first, then thought the (gratuitous?) struck me:.Maybe L--- was waiting for him when he got to Paradise. Right away I was struck with the old paralysis: "What kind of stories are you telling yourself, boy, so you can feel better about L---'s horror and T--'s death?" It was the exact same gone forever feeling as before. It stayed with me for a few days, until I managed to cry. Then it left.

So I guess all I'm trying to say is don't assume you know what's in another person's heart. It's easy to convince yourself that you do know, but you know, you're probably wrong. People can be as mysterious as God.

Or one could introduce even more painful suffering and consider people being burnt at the stake for translating the Latin Bible into English during Thomas More's day. (See "God's Bestseller" for the details.) This can lead more quickly to an anti-God argument since both sides of those atrocities see God on their side and have an emotional response to those who are burning.

Oh yes, I know about Tyndale and actually have an old copy of Wycliff around somewhere--not as old as that, but old enough. I recently read Wolf Hall, which touches a little on the phenomenon of setting people on fire because they have different ideas about God than you do. It's upsetting, but Wycliff was already dead when they burned him--they actually had to dig him up first). But I knew a lot about the subject before.

[Pompey Bum]

I thought more about what you might have meant about self-righteousness. I wonder if you are feeling stymied because you need suffering to be less than real for your conception of God to be authentic, but you cannot get that because I keep pointing out that suffering is real to the one who is tortured or crucified or burnt alive. That response is not an emotional one. Being burnt is a different experience than feeling the summer grass between one's toes or hearing a song that fills one with joy. And it is not self-righteous to mention extreme examples of suffering. Are you sure that the emotion you sense is not arising from frustration at having such (admittedly upsetting) examples set out for you?

In any case, on reflection, I suspect that we are nearing the point on this thread where we are just going to have to embrace the ideas we share (the existence of a good God, for instance), and agree to disagree on the rest. You are not going to convince me that suffering doesn't exist, and I don't think I am going to convince you that it is a part of God's mystery that we can only bear faithfully. And I think everyone else moved on long ago. Haven't we really been at an impasse for a while ourselves?

[YesNo]

In other words, my love luck is so bad that even that Gypsy was wasting her time (and my money) over it. It's not a question of whether you believe in fortune tellers helping your love life by lighting magic candles (which I certainly do not, but perhaps you do).

I would not be so quick to claim it doesn't help, but let's not worry about this gypsy.

No, this is where you lose me. Many people doubt for reasons other than self-righteousness (it could even be thought of as self-righteous for you to assume so--then where are you? Stuck in an infinite loop! Sounds like a wrong turn to me.

The infinite loop is part of the reason why logic isn't going to help. I am a part of the self-righteousness problem when it comes to suffering. If atheists whine about Christians burning people at the stake, I will bring up the Khmer Rouge. If Christians whine about Jews "killing baby Jesus", I will remind them that I think the antisemitism that grounded the holocaust is rooted in their sacred texts.

I'm the kind of guy who likes to keep that loop turning.

But let me give you an example of how doubt that is not self-righteous can work. In my opinion (to be honest rather than boastful) I am more faithful than most men I know of my age. My greatest moments of doubt come with the death of those I love, especially if the death was horrible to them. My low point was 26 years ago, when my Mom died in a lot of pain. Afterwards, for a time, my faith took a vacation. Because my faith is a real thing for me (as opposed to a "Oh gee, wouldn't that be nice!" kind of thing), it is either really there or it really isn't. And It REALLY wasn't. That wasn't a choice or reaction: it was just as a fact. My Mom was gone forever, and I knew it, and it was just the most obvious fact in the world.

In terms of my faith, it was like being paralyzed at the waist and trying to move my legs. There just wasn't a lot to be said about it. But there was no sense of: "Oh God, how I've suffered, and you don't know the half of it, so just don't you talk to me about God's existence, because I'm in pain. So there!" It wasn't like that at all--despite the dumb *ss clergy who had been trained to tell me that it was (and who really just didn't know what the hell else to say). So okay, maybe I was being my usual arrogant self (clergy ARE dumb), but there was nothing self-righteous about it. It was really just me being honest about how I felt.

Feeling that way didn't last forever, thank God. But those days were brought back to me last week when something upsetting happened. Without going into the whole story, I had a very close friend--almost a second father--who was about 80 then; and we had a mutual friend, the daughter of an adult friend, who was a 15 year old Chinese girl. We taught her English and western culture, which she loved; and we all sort of loved each other. So then she got sick and died of a childhood cancer in fairly short order. That was a few years ago, and I've since returned to the States to look after my own aging father. Last week I found out that my old friend had just died, too. I was sad at first, then thought the (gratuitous?) struck me:.Maybe L--- was waiting for him when he got to Paradise. Right away I was struck with the old paralysis: "What kind of stories are you telling yourself, boy, so you can feel better about L---'s horror and T--'s death?" It was the exact same gone forever feeling as before. It stayed with me for a few days, until I managed to cry. Then it left.

I am sorry for your loses.

I am going to ask a question. I mean no disrespect by it. I expect you to throw the question back at me: What do you think happens to them?

So I guess all I'm trying to say is don't assume you know what's in another person's heart. It's easy to convince yourself that you do know, but you know, you're probably wrong. People can be as mysterious as God.

I only claim to know what I feel. I assume that others who make the same kinds of arguments that I would make against one group or another because of some alleged suffering are feeling something similar to the self-righteousness that I would feel.

Oh yes, I know about Tyndale and actually have an old copy of Wycliff around somewhere--not as old as that, but old enough. I recently read Wolf Hall, which touches a little on the phenomenon of setting people on fire because they have different ideas about God than you do. It's upsetting, but Wycliff was already dead when they burned him--they actually had to dig him up first). But I knew a lot about the subject before.

I know very little about them except what I read in Bryan Moynahan's book, "God's Bestseller".

I do think it was ludicrous to dig up Wycliff just so they could burn his body and hope they sent him to hell. They probably condemned themselves in the process.

This is one of the beautiful things about death. It so frustrates the self-righteous. They can only make someone suffer for so long. The Romans did their best to keep the suffering going as long as humanly possible with crucifixions. The Christians did their best with burning people at the stake or hanging, drawing and quartering their enemies. The ones who burn the longest are the ones who survive.

[Pompey Bum]

If atheists whine about Christians burning people at the stake, I will bring up the Khmer Rouge. If Christians whine about Jews "killing baby Jesus", I will remind them that I think the antisemitism that grounded the holocaust is rooted in their sacred texts.

I'm the kind of guy who likes to keep that loop turning.

Interesting. You're talking about the appropriation of history for ideological purposes. There is a lot of that going around these days. In the post-modern academy it is considered inevitable (because things like sex, sorry, gender, and melatonin level supposedly carry the ultimate truths) and you're even supposed to do it in some cases. And in politics proper, framing narratives to manipulate support is the name of the game. You're right that dueling self-righteousness is central to all this lying. But critical historians soldier on. We've seen worse. In my opinion, there is nothing inevitable about the self-righteousness that needs to impede logic or morality; nor is it a basis for dismissing the problem of suffering in the human experience. So I'm not convinced it needs to be an infinite loop. It is a potential pitfall though.

I am sorry for your loss.

I am going to ask a question. I mean no disrespect by it. I expect you to throw the question back at me: What do you think happens to them?

Thanks. No, your question is not disrespectful. I don't know if this is what you meant by throwing it back at you, but as I've said, no one knows what happens after you die. Or maybe that doesn't answer your question, which was what do I think happens. Okay, I think one's body reverts to particles and one's life (zoe) goes its own way. My suspect that zoe takes something gleaned in its late physical experience (maybe wisdom?), but how would I know? And given the great influence of the late body on zoe's recent experience as human being, I am not at all convinced that one's personality (psyche) survives death. On the other hand, it may be that what does survive--freed from the limits and instincts of the body--is a truer self than the dice roll of one's personality. But I'm really just speculating.

Okay, maybe throwing the question back at you means asking you what you think happens. I'd be interested to hear.

I know very little about them except what I read in Bryan Moynahan's book, "God's Bestseller".

Thomas More comes off as a real psycho killer in Wolf Hall. (Do you remember what a heroic martyr he was in A Man for All Seasons?) I've heard this has brought some accusations of anti-Catholicism against Mantel, but I don't see it in the book. She could have come down much harder than she did on the 16th century Papacy, and Wolsey, England's appetitive Catholic theocrat at the time, is actually a sympathetic character. Mantel herself is a lapsed Catholic (turned Socialist agnostic), so that may have produced some hard feelings. I heard her say in an interview, though, that she is considering to join the Church of England now. And she doesn't sound like much of a Socialist anymore, either. Anyway, chit, chat, gossip, gossip.

I do think it was ludicrous to dig up Wycliff just so they could burn his body and hope they sent him to hell. They probably condemned themselves in the process.

Condemned themselves to hell? Do you really think so?

But yes, it was as stupid as burning anyone else alive; although I doubt Wycliff's cadaver minded much. I think they used copies of his Bible to stoke the fire, which seems the greater crime to me. Or maybe I made that detail up. I don't really remember.

[YesNo]

Interesting. You're talking about the appropriation of history for ideological purposes. There is a lot of that going around these days. In the post-modern academy it is considered inevitable (because things like sex, sorry, gender, and melatonin level supposedly carry the ultimate truths) and you're even supposed to do it in some cases. And in politics proper, framing narratives to manipulate support is the name of the game. You're right that dueling self-righteousness is central to all this lying. But critical historians soldier on. We've seen worse. In my opinion, there is nothing inevitable about the self-righteousness that needs to impede logic or morality; nor is it a basis for dismissing the problem of suffering in the human experience. So I'm not convinced it needs to be an infinite loop. It is a potential pitfall though.

Then we agree. Suffering is an excuse used to "frame narratives to manipulate support". The arguments are emotional based upon ideas of injustice which can only be grounded in whether I like the suffering or not. The righteousness that calls for justice has only the self as its ground.

Thanks. No, your question is not disrespectful. I don't know if this is what you meant by throwing it back at you, but as I've said, no one knows what happens after you die. Or maybe that doesn't answer your question, which was what do I think happens. Okay, I think one's body reverts to particles and one's life (zoe) goes its own way. My suspect that zoe takes something gleaned in its late physical experience (maybe wisdom?), but how would I know? And given the great influence of the late body on zoe's recent experience as human being, I am not at all convinced that one's personality (psyche) survives death. On the other hand, it may be that what does survive--freed from the limits and instincts of the body--is a truer self than the dice roll of one's personality. But I'm really just speculating.

Okay, maybe throwing the question back at you means asking you what you think happens. I'd be interested to hear.

That would be how I see it as well although we might differ on details about "zoe" or "particles". I would have referred you to Raymond Moody's "Life After Life" if you didn't have an answer.

Thomas More comes off as a real psycho killer in Wolf Hall. (Do you remember what a heroic martyr he was in A Man for All Seasons?) I've heard this has brought some accusations of anti-Catholicism against Mantel, but I don't see it in the book. She could have come down much harder than she did on the 16th century Papacy, and Wolsey, England's appetitive Catholic theocrat at the time, is actually a sympathetic character. Mantel herself is a lapsed Catholic (turned Socialist agnostic), so that may have produced some hard feelings. I heard her say in an interview, though, that she is considering to join the Church of England now. And she doesn't sound like much of a Socialist anymore, either. Anyway, chit, chat, gossip, gossip.

Thomas More did not come off looking very good in Moynahan's book either.

I thought "A Man for All Seasons" was grossly sentimental. Of course, I saw it after reading "God's Bestseller", because I wanted to know more about More. Whatever Pope canonized this guy should be ashamed of himself.

Condemned themselves to hell? Do you really think so?

But yes, it was as stupid as burning anyone else alive; although I doubt Wycliff's cadaver minded much. I think they used copies of his Bible to stoke the fire, which seems the greater crime to me. Or maybe I made that detail up. I don't really remember.

Not "to hell", but yes, their actions were an unconscious self-condemnation just as Thomas More burning his religious opponents at the stake was an act of self-condemnation on his part. He didn't see it that way. Whether he is actually in some hell or not, I don't know. More and those he burned may be partying now in heaven, like in the movie "The Voices", for all I know.

By the way, not all near-death experiences are happy movements through the tunnel into the light. People have reported "hellish" experiences. So maybe they are all partying in hell.

[Pompey Bum]

Then we agree. Suffering is an excuse used to "frame narratives to manipulate support". The arguments are emotional based upon ideas of injustice which can only be grounded in whether I like the suffering or not. The righteousness that calls for justice has only the self as its ground.

We do? Haven't I just said that framing narratives to manipulate support is not inevitable and need not impede logic and morality? And that it is no basis for dismissing he problem of suffering in human experience? I think you are confusing narratives of special victimhood with suffering. Having a giant needle driven into your pelvis and them forcefully pulled out (because it has lodged there), twice on each side, while you screen in pain, is not the same experience as feeling joy in your heart at the site of your beloved's smile. I understand that you need them be be part of the same spectrum for your theological and scientific speculations, but they are categorically different experiences that don't appear to want to cooperate with you.

That is twice recently that you have taken something I wrote seriously out of context, YesNo. Are we playing chess here, or trying to learn from one another's differences? Hmmmmm?

That would be how I see it as well although we might differ on details about "zoe" or "particles".

Really? I don't want to put words into your mouth, but are you sure you see the experience of life after the body as potentially different from the personality? Perhaps you do. It surprises me though.

I would have referred you to Raymond Moody's "Life After Life" if you didn't have an answer.

I read it when it came out: 30 or 40 years ago now. Even then I wondered how anyone knew those people were telling the truth. I am open to the possibility, of course, but I was hardly convinced by Moody.

Not "to hell", but yes, their actions were an unconscious self-condemnation just as Thomas More burning his religious opponents at the stake was an act of self-condemnation on his part. He didn't see it that way. Whether he is actually in some hell or not, I don't know. More and those he burned may be partying now in heaven, like in the movie "The Voices", for all I know.

Yeah, I don't know how that stuff works, either. Having faith in a God of love and justice is enough for me, though. For now.