david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (03/25/85)
In reply to a comment:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: again to Lord Firth
Message-ID: <5313@utzoo.UUCP>
Even if it were true that we are largely responsible for other people's
suffering, this does not explain why people suffered and starved in
remote places (such as North America) long before any Christians ever
even thought that they existed...not to mention those that starved
before the time of Abraham.
Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't save my replies to the Net, so I'm really not sure
what you mean.
However, I never could intend that others who are not
Christians are not responsible for what they know to be suffering.
And, of course, there is suffering of which we do not know, but our
racial consciousness is greatly increasing, so much that there should
be so little suffering due to ignorance as there is due to neglect.
The first missionaries find out the unknown suffering so that others
may know to do something. Should we instead meditate about whether
there is no suffering if no one hears a cry? That will not save
anyone; we should go and find out about our brothers. As the Lord
called upon Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
The purpose of a moral tradition is to help secure our consciousness
of what causes suffering and of what is our responsibility. There are
many different traditions arising at different times and places, and
their understanding is different. Nevertheless, I believe that the
teaching and example of Jesus, which does not deny responsibility
for others, is the one which we must accept if we are to survive.
Jesus said that we are ultimately judged by what we have done for the
least of those who are suffering, for even he is among them. It is
for this reason, I believe, that he very often identified himself as
the Son of Man, the mankind that should be our judge. If so, then the
last judgment is whether we are in deed our brother's keeper, or
whether we have betrayed Him.
David Harwooddavid@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (04/03/85)
In reply to a reply
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: reply from Laura Creighton to David Harwood
Message-ID: <5381@utzoo.UUCP>
I think that you miss my point. Given that the Christianity is true, it
isn't until the time of Abraham that anyone got to hear exactly what
God wanted. WHat about all the people who suffered before that time?
What about the suffering in Africa, Australia, and North America? Am I
to believe that gernerations of people suffered and died pointlessly
until Christians arrived at these places, at which point it became
the Christians fault? And all the while there is a God who could either
stop the suffereing, or at any rate explain teh purpose of the suffering
who does nothing? I find this notion rather difficult to reconcile with the
notion that God is merciful.
Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I may not have a satisfactory answer for you. I have simply
said that we are largely responsible for others suffering, whether one
believes there is God or not. Suffering itself is not evil; rather it is
our failure to do anything about it that is evil. As for the purpose
of suffering, it may be related to our creation in the image of God
as autonomous moral beings. It is hard to imagine moral agency without
a consciousness, at least a racial memory, of suffering and evil. On
the other hand, it seems to be an amazing fact of our nature that we
do become better human beings through our experience of suffering.
Your question seems to be why does not God not do something
about suffering when we are unaware or unable? Of course, most of the
people who have ever lived are living now, so in our times of
information and technological power, almost all suffering is due to
our neglect, in principle.
I never said that only Christians are responsible for suffering,
although I said that we are hypocritical more than others if we do not
do as Jesus did. Jesus unequivocally answered the question, Am I my
brother's keeper? in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Also, while
Abraham is the prototype of those who have faith in the one, true God,
known certainly by His self-revelation, even the Bible, which is not
a literally scientific account, says that there were righteous men in
every age. My point is that, no matter our beliefs, God has created us
as potentially compassionate beings, whose individual and racial
consciousness is increasing and perfectable. We may recieve a new
revelation when we are prepared for it, nevertheless we were always
potentially compassionate.
But this evades your real question, I suppose, which may have
two parts. First, why does not God do something about suffering when
we do not, although we know about it? If we are evil, then is He?
All I can say is that if God does what we do not, then we are not
relatively autonomous, acting according to our own natures. Even, we
would be compelled to religion which we did not desire. (I might
add that God does do something about suffering through us, since we have
been created.)
Secondly, why does not God do something about suffering when
we do not, if we do not know about it? It seems that pain and suffering
are given facts, as is death. The only other thing I can say is that
if He acts so to end suffering, outside of our cooperation, then there
is no suffering, we would not have our status as moral beings. But this
seems to be inherent to the purpose of our creation in the image of God.
Paul says that all creation, as in childbirth, groans until the
sons of God be revealed.
It is merciful of God to have created us at all, and with the
divine spark of compassion which makes it possible for us to be redeemed.
We might not exist, or we might as well be dead in an uncaring world.
David Harwood