Friday 10 February 2012

If I wereGod, I'd end all the Pain

I am currently half way through a very thought provoking book and I thought that I would share some of the things that I have read so far. In some places I agree and some I disagree, yet if I am completely honest there are sections that I haven't made my mind up with.

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!

7 comments:

  1. I think this book assumes that all suffering is unnecessary. On the opposite side - what would the world actually be like without suffering? Would we have opportunities to act with love and mercy? Would we have the chance to forgive others and grow? Would we develop our personalities to become the people God wants us to be?
    God doesn't see suffering like we do. We see the here and now; He sees the now and the eternal. Suffering passes, what is left is a fully purposed person who has fulfilled God's plan in their life and has wisdom to show for it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree, i think the book does assumethat suffering is unnecessary and possible presents Gods side as a coping mechanisim, However I haven't finished the book fully.

    Suffering does present other opposing features that you mentiones, love, mercy, forgiveness. And you raised a really vaild point about if "What would teh world actually be like without suffering?" But then my answer would be the Kingdom of Heaven. One would assume that our exsistence before the human fall wouldhave been one without suffering, and with that we would have still reached the puposed growth that God would have wanted. But the love of it is that God still allows us growth through our suffering, because as you stated He doesn't see the Here and now, like we do.

    Thank you for commenting though, I always appreciate comments and view points to explore my original thinking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah but you're assuming that the fall wasn't in God's plan all along. He knew what we would do, Jesus was the continuation of that plan.
      If we didn't know suffering and evil we wouldn't know love; it would just be our whole being and everything we know.
      I would like to know how you could grow without suffering? I think it would be impossible. If you don't make mistakes, sin, have others sin against you where's the growth?

      Delete
  3. This is all true.

    I think the majority of the time our assumptions, including mine, are assumptions from our viewpoint and understanding rather than of God.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's an infuriating answer! But thanks for the post.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry! Didn't mean to agree with you!

    I could argue a little bit, and say that we would know love, Adam and Eve understood Love and what they were expected to do with it, despite the fact that God knew that they were heading for the fall, I personally think love is the onset emotion that leads to others. If you didn't love you wouldn't be able to feel upset when someone lets you down, or anger when you're hurt. In these case our sinful actions are causing us pain because of the love that is originally there!

    Love is there allowing us to grow. God gave us that ability for Love, He didn't give us the ability to fail, hurt and anger others, we did that through our actions at the original fall. Love is key at all times for our growth not the experience to be hurt or in pain because of it. I personally believe that in Heaven we will still grow, ultimately grow into the people that God wants us to be. We wont just stop growing when we get there. But there wont be suffering in heaven, and therefore we must be able to grow in a counter offence way than through pain.

    you also asked "how can we grow without suffering" Although many children in this world suffer and suffer unfairly at the hands of people who care from them, other have the opposite approach where they grow in an environment of love. As a parent I could sit and play, craft, cuddle and show all kinds of actions of love towards my children and they have still grown, and grown through love. You do not need to be hit by a car to realise the suffering that could happen to realise that you should look both ways before you cross the road. Guidance and care and grow you through love.

    And apologies again, I am always happy to show an alternative view point to get you thinking, doesn't always mean that I dont agree with yours! Just ask and I will always be happy to debate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ah that is the ideal but I also think that without making mistakes or hurting ourselves we wouldn't know not to make those mistakes in the future. You wouldn't want a child to hurt but if they accidently hurt themselves they would know not to do that in the future; that's how we grow and learn.
    We teach our children to look both ways because being run over is a possibility. If it wasn't then we wouldn't need to teach that.
    Personally I have only begun to appreciate the good when going through the bad. I think heaven would be less amazing without the knowledge of earth.

    Anyway, think I've commented too many times now...

    ReplyDelete

Being Gay and the bible

Oh how I hate this opinion, mostly because it is against what the bible actually teaches us! Most of the homosexual comments in the bible ...