Do you believe that suffering is necessary for positive growth?

(Oct 15, 2017 01:34 AM)Leigha Wrote: Do you believe that suffering is necessary for positive growth?
  Why or why not? Discuss.

Unfortunately it looks that way to me because of the figurative cruel streak in evolution.

I was reviewing the thread after my post and see CC said a similar thing, and very well, I think.

(Oct 17, 2017 06:44 PM)elte Wrote:

(Oct 15, 2017 01:34 AM)Leigha Wrote: Do you believe that suffering is necessary for positive growth?
  Why or why not? Discuss.

Unfortunately it looks that way to me because of the figurative cruel streak in evolution.

I was reviewing the thread after my post and see CC said a similar thing, and very well, I think.

Interesting point, elte. I don't know if there is a cruel streak in evolution. ''Cruelty'' is a word I'd use when someone is being deliberate...Hitler was cruel. But, how can nature be cruel?

(Oct 17, 2017 07:13 PM)Leigha Wrote:

(Oct 17, 2017 06:44 PM)elte Wrote:

(Oct 15, 2017 01:34 AM)Leigha Wrote: Do you believe that suffering is necessary for positive growth?
  Why or why not? Discuss.

Unfortunately it looks that way to me because of the figurative cruel streak in evolution.

I was reviewing the thread after my post and see CC said a similar thing, and very well, I think.

Interesting point, elte. I don't know if there is a cruel streak in evolution. ''Cruelty'' is a word I'd use when someone is being deliberate...Hitler was cruel. But, how can nature be cruel?

Indeed, Leigha.  Mother Nature is abusive from my perspective, though I say it using metaphor because I don't believe the supernatural exists.

When I said figuratively, I was meaning to show that I was using a figure of speech.

(Oct 17, 2017 05:17 PM)Leigha Wrote:

(Oct 17, 2017 05:09 PM)Syne Wrote:

(Oct 17, 2017 12:38 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Oct 17, 2017 03:25 AM)Syne Wrote: "Suffering is a divine necessity"? Where do you get that idea from religion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering#Religion

That doesn't answer my question. Where does it say suffering is somehow a necessity, much less a divine necessity? Notice the dearth of citations regarding those claims about Christianity. 

The crux of Christianity is about suffering and 'redemption.' Jesus himself sacrificed his life, again...redemptive suffering. In Islam, Muhammad tells his followers that it's honorable to become a martyr for the faith. Likewise, the Abrahamic faiths all have that as a tenet. Suffering and even dying for the faith is seen as noble and redemptive. 

If it's not a necessity, then someone should alert all the people who consider themselves blessed and 'better off' if they submit to martyrdom. Too late for all those who have already lost their lives ''defending'' their beliefs. 

No one's arguing about Islam, so that's a straw man when we're discussing Christianity. Where in the bible does it call people to be martyrs?

"If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name." - 1 Peter 4:14-16

"If anyone suffers..." Insult is a suffering of one's own choosing, and this seems to be advice on mediating suffering.
The crux of Christianity is redemption from suffering...not "redemption and suffering". The suffering of Jesus was done in lieu of the suffering of man, and perhaps as metaphor for the second chance redemption allows from previous suffering.


BTW, the word martyr comes from the Greek martur, which just means "witness". It only became associated with death and suffering due to religious persecution of early Christians. Such a witness is similar to a soldier. Neither hope (nor are required) to be injured or die, but both knowingly face the risk. That is why fallen soldiers and martyrs are honored.

Quote:Regarding the comment about manipulation...didn't you post this?

Just because you don't, or can't be bothered to, have the wherewithal to support your views, doesn't compel anything of me. And "let's not quarrel" is just a thought-terminating cliche: 


"Sometimes they are used in a deliberate attempt to shut down debate, manipulate others to think a certain way, or dismiss dissent. However, some people repeat them, even to themselves, out of habit, conditioning or as a defense mechanism." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clich%C3%A...lich.C3.A9

Maybe you missed where there are three options there (e.g. "shut down debate, manipulate others to think a certain way, or dismiss dissent"). Seems you chose the option that you thought applied to you.

(Oct 17, 2017 07:13 PM)Leigha Wrote:

(Oct 17, 2017 06:44 PM)elte Wrote: Unfortunately it looks that way to me because of the figurative cruel streak in evolution.

Interesting point, elte. I don't know if there is a cruel streak in evolution. ''Cruelty'' is a word I'd use when someone is being deliberate...Hitler was cruel. But, how can nature be cruel?

I don't know that I'd go that far. I mean, the devastation of a hurricane seems pretty cruel to me.
But I agree that I wouldn't use that word in respect to evolution. The "survival of the fittest" notion of natural selection really doesn't imply any more cruelty than the everyday predator/prey relationship...and that sort of suffering doesn't really allow for growth.

Are you a Christian, Syne?

---

Quote:I don't know that I'd go that far. I mean, the devastation of a hurricane seems pretty cruel to me.
But I agree that I wouldn't use that word in respect to evolution. The "survival of the fittest" notion of natural selection really doesn't imply any more cruelty than the everyday predator/prey relationship...and that sort of suffering doesn't really allow for growth.

The definition of cruelty is actually to willfully cause pain or suffering to others, and/or feeling no concern about it.

Nature really doesn't have a ''will,'' one way or the other. 

But, I get your point, elte!  

(Oct 17, 2017 08:13 PM)Leigha Wrote: Are you a Christian, Syne?

(Oct 16, 2017 05:59 AM)Syne Wrote: While not a Christian, I freely admit to being a Christian apologist (not a dirty word). I'm syncretic in my beliefs.

---

cruel - causing pain or suffering: a cruel accident.

(Oct 17, 2017 08:49 PM)Syne Wrote:

(Oct 17, 2017 08:13 PM)Leigha Wrote: Are you a Christian, Syne?

(Oct 16, 2017 05:59 AM)Syne Wrote: While not a Christian, I freely admit to being a Christian apologist (not a dirty word). I'm syncretic in my beliefs.

Sorry, you did answer that. I actually lean in agreement with that view point; I would say that there are many tenets of the Abrahamic faiths in general, where I find value.

---

(Oct 17, 2017 05:54 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote:

(Oct 17, 2017 05:14 AM)Syne Wrote:

(Oct 17, 2017 04:15 AM)Leigha Wrote: My bubble is precious, yes. lol Just likes yours.

I'm not trying to silence you, but rather get YOU to think about others' opinions, besides your own.  I do try to see your views and others, and if I disagree, that's fine. But, it doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means...I disagree. If you disagree with me, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong, either. Again, when it comes to philosophy, who can be right or wrong? So, let's not quarrel.

I don't have a bubble. I'm constantly awash in views that oppose my own...in the prevailing secular culture and media.

Sure, from a moral relativist's point of view, all opinions are equal. So why are you arguing? You see, from your apparent belief, YOU have no reason to argue, but from mine, I do. These are very relevant issues in philosophy, and much debated. You claiming your favored philosophical view is paramount is simply a bare assertion, without any argument at all.

Just because you don't, or can't be bothered to, have the wherewithal to support your views, doesn't compel anything of me. And "let's not quarrel" is just a thought-terminating cliche:

"Sometimes they are used in a deliberate attempt to shut down debate, manipulate others to think a certain way, or dismiss dissent. However, some people repeat them, even to themselves, out of habit, conditioning or as a defense mechanism." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clich%C3%A...lich.C3.A9

Quote:They are often sayings that have been embedded in a culture's folk wisdom and are tempting to say because they often sound true or good or like the right thing to say.[15]

is there a difference between genders on this ?
females being driven through natural selection to not argue
males being driven by natural selection to refuse to change


Generically speaking does "not argue" have 2 different meanings depending on its gender identity  ?

men suffer from opening up to debate and allowing descent and thus loosing breeding rights to women.

women suffer for opening up debate by being beaten continuosely for years & years...

does a man saying "i do not wish to argue" mean somethng different to a women saying "i do not wish to argue" ?

hhmmm...

''Breeding rights?'' 

I can only speak for me - but when I say ''I do not wish to argue'' it doesn't mean that I don't wish to debate in a healthy way, the issues that are being discussed. ''Arguing'' infers that someone must emerge a ''winner,'' and there are no winners in this discussion, it's simply that....a discussion. But, there are people in life who must win or else. I don't really feel offended per se by those types of people, but I admire such tenacity at times, providing ad homs and wild assumptions are kept out.

(Oct 17, 2017 08:13 PM)Leigha Wrote: Are you a Christian, Syne?

---

Quote:I don't know that I'd go that far. I mean, the devastation of a hurricane seems pretty cruel to me.
But I agree that I wouldn't use that word in respect to evolution. The "survival of the fittest" notion of natural selection really doesn't imply any more cruelty than the everyday predator/prey relationship...and that sort of suffering doesn't really allow for growth.

The definition of cruelty is actually to willfully cause pain or suffering to others, and/or feeling no concern about it.

Nature really doesn't have a ''will,'' one way or the other. 

But, I get your point, elte!  

That was why I said -figuratively- in my comment because it means that it isn't meant to be a literally interpreted expression but rather a literary device to make writing more interesting.  The reader is hoped to see that the writer doesn't mean to imply that the mechanism of nature has a will, or even consciousness, for that matter.  I actually strongly think the opposite, even, that nature is happenstance and overall mindless, and therefore, unthinking.

Thank you for trying to understand.  I can't say I'm the best writer though I have always tried.

(Oct 17, 2017 09:21 PM)elte Wrote:

(Oct 17, 2017 08:13 PM)Leigha Wrote: Are you a Christian, Syne?

---

Quote:I don't know that I'd go that far. I mean, the devastation of a hurricane seems pretty cruel to me.
But I agree that I wouldn't use that word in respect to evolution. The "survival of the fittest" notion of natural selection really doesn't imply any more cruelty than the everyday predator/prey relationship...and that sort of suffering doesn't really allow for growth.

The definition of cruelty is actually to willfully cause pain or suffering to others, and/or feeling no concern about it.

Nature really doesn't have a ''will,'' one way or the other. 

But, I get your point, elte!  

That was why I said -figuratively- in my comment because it means that it isn't meant to be a literally interpreted expression but rather a literary device to make writing more interesting.  The reader is hoped to see that the writer doesn't mean to imply that the mechanism of nature has a will, or even consciousness, for that matter.  I actually strongly think the opposite, even, that nature is happenstance and overall mindless, and therefore, unthinking.

Thank you for trying to understand.  I can't say I'm the best writer though I have always tried.

No worries at all, you explain yourself just fine.

I've always admired that you are tactful, and never aim low with ad homs, etc. 

Most people who don't remotely believe in ''intelligent design'' feel like you do, that nature is happenstance, with no real purpose. Would you consider yourself a nihilist?  Nihilism doesn't have to tie in with this, but just thought I'd ask since it crossed my mind.

(Oct 17, 2017 09:26 PM)Leigha Wrote:

(Oct 17, 2017 09:21 PM)elte Wrote:

(Oct 17, 2017 08:13 PM)Leigha Wrote: Are you a Christian, Syne?

---

Quote:I don't know that I'd go that far. I mean, the devastation of a hurricane seems pretty cruel to me.
But I agree that I wouldn't use that word in respect to evolution. The "survival of the fittest" notion of natural selection really doesn't imply any more cruelty than the everyday predator/prey relationship...and that sort of suffering doesn't really allow for growth.

The definition of cruelty is actually to willfully cause pain or suffering to others, and/or feeling no concern about it.

Nature really doesn't have a ''will,'' one way or the other. 

But, I get your point, elte!  

That was why I said -figuratively- in my comment because it means that it isn't meant to be a literally interpreted expression but rather a literary device to make writing more interesting.  The reader is hoped to see that the writer doesn't mean to imply that the mechanism of nature has a will, or even consciousness, for that matter.  I actually strongly think the opposite, even, that nature is happenstance and overall mindless, and therefore, unthinking.

Thank you for trying to understand.  I can't say I'm the best writer though I have always tried.

No worries at all, you explain yourself just fine.

I've always admired that you are tactful, and never aim low with ad homs, etc. 

Most people who don't remotely believe in ''intelligent design'' feel like you do, that nature is happenstance, with no real purpose. Would you consider yourself a nihilist?  Nihilism doesn't have to tie in with this, but just thought I'd ask since it crossed my mind.

Thank you very much indeed.

I'm a nihilist in my own way in that if the universe were to disappear because of, say, the collapse of the Higgs field, that would be the best possible event for sentient, especially self-aware life, based on what I can tell.