"There is no respect of persons--or nations--with God."
"Behind every face besotted with sin is the face of The Lord Jesus Christ. Behind every downtrodden mass of human corruption is Calvary. Deep within each person is the potential for a life incandescent with God's Holy Spirit. The entire world belongs to Him."
--merely conceptualizing this is virtually and actually impossible.
--virtually and actually, every judgment by humanity of, on, or against God is, at base level, an emotional argument. There is no strictly or even partially rational argument against God. We argue more by induction these days than by deduction--but it still comes down to emotional reactions to life experiences with the agenda based on our preferred assumptions. In psychology this is called, "secondary gain", and no one is immune. We do not ever experience life objectively but are reactionaries in every way, thought, and deed.
--how else does one account for such radically different interpretations of the question of suffering between the authors I have been reading-- Camus, Simone Weil, Flannery O'Connor, and Phillip Roth? (see "Nemesis" by the latter, an interpretation of the polio epidemic of the 1950s)
Apparently it's not about talent, accomplishments, and fame!
(Incidentally, isn't it ironic that Mr. Roth, a strident atheist, is named after one of the first and most potent evangelists who was the first missionary to black Africans?)
The fact that our vision is terminal and terminally limited seldom occurs to the most thoughtful of us. Einstein's theories did not humble us in the least, even though that is the only logical conclusion he or the rest of us could draw. No, our response is typical, to twist honest findings to add to our hubris and our epicurean presumption. The majority, and the majority of every minority, will jump to the conclusion that now we know everything, which gives us the self-endowed keys to the universe, God, and every question imaginable.
Uh, that's not the point......and by the way, how could suffering itself, being a reaction consisting of various sorts of pain, be approached by mere men, as anything other than an emotional problem to be solved by the same means it came about, i.e. emotions impacting the human will, our decision-making capacity? The fact that none of us would even survive childhood without pain here, there, and everywhere is, as Al Gore used the term, an "inconvenient truth." The fact that most of us die in some kind of pain hardly obliterates the necessity of pain!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Here are some quotes on pain and suffering I liked.
ReplyDeleteIf you suffer, thank God! -- it is a sure sign that you are alive. --Elbert Hubbard
It is not true that suffering ennobles the character; happiness does that sometimes, but suffering, for the most part, makes men petty and vindictive. --W. Somerset Maugham
The truth that many people never understand, until it is too late, is that the more you try to avoid suffering the more you suffer because smaller and more insignificant things begin to torture you in proportion to your fear of being hurt. --Thomas Merton
Difficult times have helped me to understand better than before, how infinitely rich and beautiful life is in every way, and that so many things that one goes worrying about are of no importance whatsoever. -- Isak Dinesen
Nice quotes, Dennis! I would add:
ReplyDelete"Can any of you by worrying add one day to your life?" (Matthew 6:27)
“Jesus did not come to explain away
suffering, or to remove it.
He came to fill it with His presence.” (Paul Claudel)
"Have no fear for what tomorrow may bring. The same loving God who cares for you today will take care of you tomorrow and every day. God will either shield you from suffering or give you the unfailing strength to bear it. So, be at peace, then, and put aside all anxious thoughts and imaginations." (St. Francis de Sales)
The Catholic Church teaches suffering is "redemptive" - that somehow our personal passages through moments of Paschal Mystery (dying and rising again) make a difference. It is why we honor martyrs, for instance. Their suffering only makes sense if it somehow is part of the economy of grace through which God redeems the world.
That's the theological take on it. The human take: God sent his Son to become like us so that he would be a model for how we surrender to the will of God. God does not "will" suffering, but because to be human is, by definition, to be finite and imperfect, suffering is a part of our nature and cannot be avoided. God is always present in the suffering. Not many people experience a "miracle" in the real world, but all of us may find comfort in the presence of God, revealed in the compassion of those around us. ("compassion" = to "suffer with")
Great Responses--thank you one and all--or one and two...
ReplyDeleteThe statistical observation (Maugham) of what most people do with pain has little to do with character or happiness, both of which can be better explained by heredity and choices we make, far more the latter, given almost any condition. The vast, vaster, and vastest response to pain is simple avoidance of the painful stimulus. Which is exactly the purpose of this life- and survival- enhancing tool.
For research purposes, the average or majority response is always of interest but, outside of testing analgesics, has no certain usefulness nor any profound philosophical or metaphysical implications. Fiction authors and myth-makers (I would include the new atheists, who have made many observations but no new inroads into either science or metaphysics) are fond of making generalizations when they cannot explain the variations. What does the law of averages prove about a totally unique universe?
Well, I suppose someone had to crunch the numbers--but it tells us nothing of who we are and what we are destinated to become.
What most contemporary authors want is to be, well, "well-liked"; hence each one speaks to his own crowd; most of which aren't even statistically significant, and there is no general agreement among the tribes either. But each tribe is on a collision course with all the others, hoping to win universal acclaim. (The "little bang" theory of the whimpering clubs and classes)
There are the individual exceptions of course, and there's the rub. Einstein said he got more out of Dostoevsky than from any of his fellow scientists!
Oh, by the way..what is happiness? The abscence of pain? And which is in fact the most useful--even for mere survival? Mr. Roth can easily accept the fact that there are mutations in the world that displease him and upset his sense of order, cleanlinss, fair play, and all that. But because he and his small circle are not happy in spite of being overabunandly provided for, does it then follow either that God is a child-hater and infant-killer, or nonexistent? I recall a certain Jewish forbear of his who heard from God: "Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?"
And so far as we know, Jonah died angry--at least that's what he said he wanted..."angry enough to die!"
Would any explanation ever satisfy the majority of people who, as was said or implied by Francis de Sales, have more pain from things that don't even exist than over things that do?
"Casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself...."
Also refer back to previous posts and sites reflecting the "Four Levels of Happiness" cited by both Catholic and Protestant scientists. It still doesn't define happiness in general; but I will still continue to assume that happiness is transient--like pain--and that Joy is forever.
ReplyDelete