The Book is called "If I were God, I'd end all the Pain" by John Dickson
The first few chapters try to explain why the author has some views on this topic, explaining his personal experiences, where his father died in a plane crash when he was young.
This was a very interesting start, one that I was hopeful with, yet he immediately distracts from this and enters into the topic of coping strategies that other religions may consider using when dealing with suffering, it is some of these points that I wish to discuss. In general these chapters that I have read are quite a difficult read, not from a literately point of view but from the fact that the author is asking some deep, difficult and uncomfortable questions.
The most difficult concept being the argument that a God who allows sickness, suffering and death is not a God worth worshipping, or that He is a weak God, unable to control His chaotic world.
I have come across this main argument before, if I am honest I use to argue it!
There is usually 2 main logical assumptions.
1: That God is an all powerful God who CAN end suffering and therefore being all loving would also desire to end it. So logic would permit that if God is an all powerful and all loving God that wants us not to suffer, then there mustn't be a God because we are a world that suffers.
2: An all powerful God exist, an all loving God exists (the same premise as before) Yet in this option, God, must have a more loving reason to allow the suffering.
As a Christian the above points and assumptions are difficult to swallow, and at times difficult to answer. Mainly with the question being raised "Why would God allow it?"
I do not and will not ever believe that we are being punished and that is a result of a parent scolding a child, I just cannot believe that a God who sent His son to die for us so we can have a better life, would be like that. Why send Jesus in the first place if He wants to punish us?
The Book investigates the concept as suffering as balance, in basic terms, how most people see Karma, one counter reaction balances out another way.
If, for example, a person broke up a family home, then they would start having an existence of suffering then one could assume that the suffering has balanced out. (Almost a revengeful way) This too I find difficult, Why would that be necessary when we have a God who forgives? However, according to this book, this is a concept that is difficult to intellectually disprove. The author states:
"If i were to accept my suffering is divinely sanctioned balance for my wrongs, is it possible to find consolation in my pain? At one level, comfort may be found in thought that some of my prior sins have been balanced out, and therefore one experience of deserved suffering is out of the way."
I find this above statement incredibly disturbing. I can not see rationally why people can see this as a valid argument?! Especially when you consider my health problems, does that therefore mean that I am suffering because of my prior wrongs? I find that difficult only because I was born with this illness, and I was under the impression that we were generally born "clean" (I will clarify this statement of clean later). Can this also answer why a mother is suffering at the loss of a death of a child? mmmm....I doubt it.
This above point was one that I read, disagreed with strongly and found it then difficult to carry on reading. How do you feel about it?
The next point that really got me thinking is this, Desire.
Desire for something is such a strong emotion that it is usually attached to other emotions; Love and desire, hate and desire (for revenge) grief and desire (to see you loved one again) Sadness and desire (for improvement).
This concept of desire is described in the book as a concept considered by other religions for their suffering. So again with the understanding of someone, like myself, being sick that I have a desire to run etc and this desire for a better existence therefore is a double edged sword often as a reminder of what you or I can not do. This then results in a person that could believe because of a negative thoughts of desire that they are suffering.
This concept has never occurred to me but has had me thinking for a few days now. This would also "fill" in the previous "controversial" statement written above.
A women who is tragically grieving over the loss of her child is only doing so because they have a desire to be reunited with that child and therefore is being reminded of their loss and is currently suffering. It is still a difficult concept to take in though!
However, when I think about it, it does make sense. When I was at University there was a Girl in a motorised wheelchair who use to run people over, especially when she was drunk. She hated her life, her situation and was often moaning or upset. She felt she was suffering. She had the same illness as myself, yet a different strand, so the onset was earlier for her. Many people use to question why I wasn't acting the same as her, even now 12 years on and a deterioration of my illness I still get asked that question. Why am I not bitter about it? Well I am a little bit, but I have been given a hand that I was dealt with, I better see how far I can get in the game with it. That has 95% of the time been my attitude, and I definitely do not feel like I suffer!
So is the desire less for me here, and therefore I don't think I suffer in this way?
This reminded me of the different types of sin that exists.
1: Original Sin, created with Adam and Eve breaking the trust with God.
2: Our own active free will allowing us to make sinful decisions.
3: Indirect sin, Sin that someone else commits that has indirectly affected you. (For example a drink driver is committing the sin here, but their actions could result in someone being injured)
Could then Suffering be deemed in the the same way?:
1:Suffering that has existed for generations, like genetic illnesses that get passed along.
2: Our own suffering where desire plays a part to remind us that we are suffering in reflection of what we are missing.
3: Unexplained suffering, almost original suffering like original sin.
I suppose this book so far has explored and tried to cover the concepts of options 1 and 2, but with the opening chapter raising the point that I mentioned at the top, could original suffering be in place if God loved us? I don't have the answers, but have many a view point that I believe keeps me going from day to day.
Anyway, that is probably enough to get you thinking!
Really would appreciate your views on this, so please either leave a comment here or on the social network page that you may have read this from!
