Making Sense out of Suffering for J Michael
#1
Ok, I'm through the fifth chapter.  So far, he makes interesting points, most of which I've thought of before and found unsatisfying ultimately.  He even admits in the beginning that he won't be offering much in the way of answers but rather clues.  I see what you mean now about happiness meaning something different way back when than it does now.  I'm also still unconvinced on this. 
Reply
#2
(06-19-2015, 08:10 PM)Melkite Wrote: Ok, I'm through the fifth chapter.  So far, he makes interesting points, most of which I've thought of before and found unsatisfying ultimately.  He even admits in the beginning that he won't be offering much in the way of answers but rather clues.  I see what you mean now about happiness meaning something different way back when than it does now.  I'm also still unconvinced on this.

Keep reading, amigo!  :)

And remember, The Faith is about faith.  And, **spoiler alert**: there is only one answer and His name is Jesus Christ, believe it or not. :)
Reply
#3
Curious thread.

I must have missed something. What are you bods on about?
Reply
#4
I finished it this morning.  I think when he began to point to Jesus as being the answer to suffering it became very patronizing.  But I understand more now what you mean about suffering. 

One problem that I see is that he talks about suffering as being the result of our freedom.  I think that is ordinarily the case, but the things that cause me the most suffering in this life are things that were completely out of my control and robbed me of my freedom.

Kreeft's understanding of justice is very Latin.  He briefly mentions the suffering of animals in another part of the book, but doesn't resolve the injustice in animals suffering if there is no future self for them to work toward or any guilt of sin for them to work off.  Their suffering is still completely useless.

I'll have to skim through the book again, there are some important points that I thought of while I was reading it that I really could not agree with.  But for starters, what was the reason that you wanted me to read this book?  Was there something in particular in it that you thought would be helpful for me?
Reply
#5
(06-22-2015, 05:12 AM)Melkite Wrote: I finished it this morning.  I think when he began to point to Jesus as being the answer to suffering it became very patronizing.  But I understand more now what you mean about suffering. 

One problem that I see is that he talks about suffering as being the result of our freedom.  I think that is ordinarily the case, but the things that cause me the most suffering in this life are things that were completely out of my control and robbed me of my freedom.

Kreeft's understanding of justice is very Latin.  He briefly mentions the suffering of animals in another part of the book, but doesn't resolve the injustice in animals suffering if there is no future self for them to work toward or any guilt of sin for them to work off.  Their suffering is still completely useless.

I'll have to skim through the book again, there are some important points that I thought of while I was reading it that I really could not agree with.  But for starters, what was the reason that you wanted me to read this book?  Was there something in particular in it that you thought would be helpful for me?
Melkite, I suggest reading C.S. Lewis' book, The Problem of Pain.  While Kreeft's work is good, I think that Lewis' is much better.
Reply
#6
I like David Bentley Hart's book on suffering. He doesn't pretend to explain suffering, as it is not  something strictly rational, being itself fruit of evil which is non-being (though it has no ontological status it can be used economically), he only refutes the deistic picture that says in the end all will be justified and we will see how necessary it was; and the Calvinistic picture that says suffering is positively willed by God. He just repeats the NT answer: evil and suffering was conquered in the Resurrection and will be ultimately conquered (which, I think he points this out in the book, is not the resignation of antiquity, btw). If you like Eastern you might like it.
Reply
#7
(06-22-2015, 05:12 AM)Melkite Wrote: I finished it this morning.  I think when he began to point to Jesus as being the answer to suffering it became very patronizing.  But I understand more now what you mean about suffering. 

One problem that I see is that he talks about suffering as being the result of our freedom.  I think that is ordinarily the case, but the things that cause me the most suffering in this life are things that were completely out of my control and robbed me of my freedom.

Kreeft's understanding of justice is very Latin.  He briefly mentions the suffering of animals in another part of the book, but doesn't resolve the injustice in animals suffering if there is no future self for them to work toward or any guilt of sin for them to work off.  Their suffering is still completely useless.

I'll have to skim through the book again, there are some important points that I thought of while I was reading it that I really could not agree with.  But for starters, what was the reason that you wanted me to read this book?  Was there something in particular in it that you thought would be helpful for me?

Why did I suggest you read the book?  Because of the existential/faith crisis you seem(ed) to be going through as evidenced by many of your posts in a couple of threads.  It seemed to me that much of it was centered around suffering and trying to make some sense of it, unsuccessfully so it appeared to me.

Was there something in particular in it that I thought would be helpful for you?  No, not really.  Just his whole approach to the subject and the way he discusses it progressing from point to point, in my opinion with so much clarity, was one that I thought you might appreciate.

All of it hinges, of course, on whether or not you believe God is God and is Just, Merciful, and Loving, and whether you believe Jesus is the Christ.  If you don't, well...I really don't know what I'd suggest to you other than, perhaps, (Theravada) Buddhism in which God is pretty much irrelevant.  But Kreeft even touches on this in his book, too, though perhaps not as completely as you might like.
Reply
#8
(06-22-2015, 01:20 AM)Oldavid Wrote: Curious thread.

I must have missed something. What are you bods on about?

Curious thread for curious folk! :grin:

You didn't miss something, but you may have had a lapse of memory.  Showing your age, again, eh?? :grin:  There was a thread somewhere (I can't remember the specific one off the top of my empty head  :LOL:), where we discussed this with Melkite some.  Maybe the one about "Good and Evil" that you started?  (Hmmm....I wonder if, for all my great age-hahaha, I am younger than you?!? :grin:)
Reply
#9
(06-22-2015, 10:09 AM)Papist Wrote:
(06-22-2015, 05:12 AM)Melkite Wrote: I finished it this morning.  I think when he began to point to Jesus as being the answer to suffering it became very patronizing.  But I understand more now what you mean about suffering. 

One problem that I see is that he talks about suffering as being the result of our freedom.  I think that is ordinarily the case, but the things that cause me the most suffering in this life are things that were completely out of my control and robbed me of my freedom.

Kreeft's understanding of justice is very Latin.  He briefly mentions the suffering of animals in another part of the book, but doesn't resolve the injustice in animals suffering if there is no future self for them to work toward or any guilt of sin for them to work off.  Their suffering is still completely useless.

I'll have to skim through the book again, there are some important points that I thought of while I was reading it that I really could not agree with.  But for starters, what was the reason that you wanted me to read this book?  Was there something in particular in it that you thought would be helpful for me?
Melkite, I suggest reading C.S. Lewis' book, The Problem of Pain.  While Kreeft's work is good, I think that Lewis' is much better.

Good suggestion, Papist!  It's on my reading list as well.  Some time ago I started it but couldn't get into it at the time.  I'll try again...
Reply
#10
(06-22-2015, 10:17 AM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I like David Bentley Hart's book on suffering. He doesn't pretend to explain suffering, as it is not  something strictly rational, being itself fruit of evil which is non-being (though it has no ontological status it can be used economically), he only refutes the deistic picture that says in the end all will be justified and we will see how necessary it was; and the Calvinistic picture that says suffering is positively willed by God. He just repeats the NT answer: evil and suffering was conquered in the Resurrection and will be ultimately conquered (which, I think he points this out in the book, is not the resignation of antiquity, btw). If you like Eastern you might like it.

I read this and found it somewhat too, for lack of a more accurate term, "intellectual" for me.  At the time it just seemed very dense, but not on the scale of most papal encyclicals  :).  Perhaps I'll give it another shot.  I don't remember it being particularly "Eastern" in spite of some "Eastern" references if I recall correctly and in spite of the fact that Hart is Orthodox.

Melkite, though, being of an Eastern bent I think, and being more intellectual than I may find it a very good read.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)