One of the greatest mistakes that unbelievers make–in fact, possibly the greatest mistake that muddles their thinking due to their hedonist and utilitarian leanings–is thinking that physical pain and suffering are an intrinsic evil that must be avoided and overcome, but such a stance is obviously nonsensical, for when I, for example, go to the gym and lift hyper-heavy super-sets, I am in great pain, and my body suffers immensely, and yet it is a glorious and joyous and good pain which I relish and love, and which is worthy of praise, and yet if I were, say, to cheat on my wife–which I have not done, but you get the point–I would no doubt experience great pleasure, but this would be a disgusting and vile and evil pleasure which would be worthy contempt, and so this helps to illustrate that pain is not necessarily something evil and pleasure is not necessarily something good; this is why I believe that not only will heaven be a place where these types of good pains can still be experienced, and it will be wonderful and joyous to experience them, but also that hell will be a place where certain soul-crushing pleasures can still be felt as well, and it is be horrible and vile to experience them, and so all this shows that it is a mistake–and again, a mistake that so many unbelievers make–to confuse pain with evil and pleasure with good.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
investigative apologetics 
Isn’t it funny how we are designed to enjoy cheating on our wives and feel pain when we try to keep healthy? What a design!
LikeLiked by 1 person
religionerased,
I get it now…from your statement, I am going to assume that you are likely one of those “amusement park” or “treat me like a bath” atheists who complain that God does not exist because he did not create this world as an amusement park for weak-willed babies. After all, how else can I understand the idea, as you seem to imply, that you would want God (either through design or directly) to ensure that sex with your wife was pleasurable, but sex with another woman was not, thereby essentially letting God do the job of keeping you from sinning rather than having to take on the responsibility yourself. Concerning keeping healthy, no one said that that brought on pain, for I can easily exercise in a way that is not painful. But it I wish to go above and beyond mere health–like my example illustrated–then that requires joyous suffering, just like to become a saint requires joyous suffering as well. After all, if becoming a saint was easy, everyone would do it, thereby removing the significance of it.
Finally, I hope you do understand that the point of this life, on Christian theism, is to serve as a morality play in order to help us freely decide our eternal destiny (and whether our desire is for God or for ourselves), and such a morality play requires hard choices and painful decisions in order to be significant. So asking God to make this life easy for us is like asking Him to remove the purpose of this life to begin with.
LikeLike
You’re doing it again, assuming that I do not believe in god because I question his morality. I do not believe in god because of the lack of evidence. I am against god if he is to exist because of his morality.
LikeLike
Hence why I said “likely”, not “certainly”. I also appreciate your honesty in claiming that you would be an anti-theist if you were “convinced” that God existed. However, like the alcoholic who finds denial of his alcoholism easier than admitting it and fighting against it on a daily basis, I suspect–and I have the grounds to form a reasonable suspicion–that atheism is just the coward’s form of anti-theism; after all, fighting against God every day is damn hard work, but simply convincing yourself that he does not exist is easy.
Indeed, that would be a good scientific study to do and investigate.
LikeLike
have you in your reading come across gratuitous suffering
LikeLike
No, I have not.
LikeLike
Then keep your writing to only those things you know or understand
LikeLike
Hahahaha…go home, little boy, for I have worked in fields where I have seen bloody death first hand and I won’t be lectured by some pathetic snot-nosed internet atheist warrior (although the attempt is most amusing).
My point, since you seemed not to have grasped it, was this: there is no such thing as gratuitous suffering, so, no, I have not seen any.
LikeLike
Being in a bloody field doesn’t make you any wiser you idjit.
LikeLike
Absolutely true, but it does mean that I have seen certain things that most people have not, so my experience is likely broader than most in this respect. And this wider experience is specifically relevant to assessing the issue of whether there is gratuitous suffering or not. Ergo, my assessment that there is no such thing as gratuitous suffering is not made in an isolated bubble or based on the fact of any easy life, thus giving it more weight.
Finally, a suggestion (and a serious one): if you are going to call me an idiot, spell the word properly, for while I know that your spelling is ‘cool and all’, the fact is that misspelling (even purposefully) your own insult makes you look like a moron, and therefore the insult backwards rather badly. So, just a tip: when calling someone an idiot, make sure your own spelling does not make you look like a moron when doing so.
LikeLike
idjit! how does that sound? I like its sound.
Again as I said, having being in a bloody situation might also not broaden your experience because you could have been there as a soldier which is close to being a follower of religion, always obeying orders without a thought, and thus no opportunity to learn.
So you are arguing all suffering serves some purpose? What would be this purpose?
LikeLike