Is suffering redemptive?

[Dookus]

One of the things that bothers me most about the great affection people have for Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa is the fact that both of them felt that human suffering had redemptive qualities.

Mother Teresa did a lot of work to comfort the ill and dying, but she was opposed to actually alleviating their suffering. She did attempt to provide palliative medication to those in her care.

The Pope was praised for his desire to show his suffering to the world. Reportedly, he thought he had redemptive qualities and he wanted the world to see it.

So.... is suffering linked to redemption?

Personally, I find the idea horrid. The notion that alleviating suffering might somehow interfere with one's redemption can lead to many outrages and horrors - some of which we've endured for centuries. That suffering is "god's will" or somebody's "karma" is, to me, a horribly offensive idea that can be used - and HAS been used - to justify pain and suffering.

I don't believe suffering is "good for the soul".

[salib]

1. I have found that I sometimes believe that we are truly defined

by what we have survived and how we have survived it. Of course, that is usually during the worst of it, so I may be biased at that point.

[Dookus]

3. I don't disagree

that our most painful moments help shape who we are. But that's got nothing to do with redemption.

[enki23]

5. painful moments can make you an asshole too

(which is to say, i completely agree with you).

[Maddy McCall]

2. Yes. It's a form of social control.

Your suffering today will earn you a special reward in heaven. Your earthly life is short, compared to eternity in heaven. Bear your burden on earth with grace.

It's a way to tell the not-so-fortunate that they should be content with their station in life. It worked with slaves in the American south. I'm sure such beliefs quieted many a potential rebellion.

I find the idea horrid, too.

[Warpy]

4. I'm with the Buddha

He found suffering for suffering's sake an ineffective path to enlightenment.

[saltpoint]

6. What a good question. I've struggled with it myself.

One of the ironies of Christianity is that in order to have redemptive blood one must nail a helpless savior to a board.

It seems to me to be a terribly high price to pay for redemption.

Buddhists are urged to acknowledge that suffering and impermanence are constants, but that each person may try to reduce their negative impact by renouncing the desire for attachment, especially the desire for material things.

Larry McMurtry said that many Americans feel that small towns build character, but he disagrees. He believes they shrink it.

I wonder if suffering, like living in small towns, is misunderstood to be redemptive when really it only shrinks one's chance for satisfaction and peace.

[Dookus]

7. well I understand WHY

people may have come to that belief. If you can't do anything about your suffering, it's probably comforting to at least believe it has some value that you can't yet realize.

And as Maddy pointed out above, it's a powerful tool to get people to quit bitching about their lot in life and get back to work.

But sadly, that view was being propagated by two of the most highly-thought-of people in modern times. Mother Teresa is revered beyond all reason (IMO), even though she devoted her life to the ideal that suffering is beautiful and redemptive. Personally, I find it an abhorrent ethos.

[saltpoint]

8. I'm with Maddy on that, too -- it's a control mechanism to --

-- appease large groups of unfortunate people.

You mention Mother Theresa. By any chance, Dookus, did you read Christopher Hitchens' essay that struck out against her beatification? His essay brought her down to size, so to speak.

And on some of the very points you raise, too.

[Dookus]

9. Yes

I read Hitchens' take on her years ago. It opened my eyes.

[MazeRat7]

10. For me, Suffering is linked to Enlightenment....

Redemption could be considered an act of self to try and influence ones karma - at least that is the western version. However, if MT and JP equated "redemption" with "enlightenment'.. then they were correct and its a matter of semantics. Suffering is the root, the motivator to achieve something different.

The Four Noble Truths:
1) Life is suffering
2) Suffering is caused by desire
3) There is a path out of suffering (The eightfold path)
4) The eightfold path is:
Right Understanding
Right Intention
Right Speech
Right Action
Right Lively hood
Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Concentration

One last point for fun:
The phrase "Gods will" has always amused me. Why, if you are God, would you have or need "will" ? *grin

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

MZr7

[OneBlueSky]

11. someone once said "Man must suffer to become wise" . . .

but I'm damned if I can remember who it was . . .

[MazeRat7]

12. There is an American Indian saying that is close to that...

It is something like... "That which does not kill me makes me wiser"....

MZr7

[Dogmudgeon]

13. Redemption in Christian -- and sometimes Rationalist -- terms

Christ is the only way to Redemption, according to Christian beliefs. It's based on a person's faith. A psychoanalytically-oriented critic might say that veneration of Christ's suffering is a kind of projection. There is really no way to argue it as a belief, since belief is non-rational. Thus the motto, "Credo quia absurdum est" -- "I believe because it's absurd".

I don't think any Christian theologian has made the case that an individual's suffering redeems him or her; the point is usually that suffering confirms one's faith, strengthens one's resolve, and can elicit spiritual insight. None of the better-respected sources I've read about suffering encourage inflicting it on other people, and most Christian and Buddhist sources strongly advocate relieving the sufferings of others (no matter what Mother Teresa may have said).

Deliberate self-mortification has been popular in Christianity, but it's not part of the Gospels. Spiritual "gifts" can come from suffering, but it's like a booby prize. Whether it can be made beneficial depends on the individual.

But here's the kicker: just because the idea exists in religion, doesn't mean it's confined to religion. The value of suffering is deeply embedded in human philosophy. Think of ideas like "The Work Ethic", "The School of Hard Knocks", "Sadder but Wiser", and "Ad Astra Per Ardua". None of these are religious notions, and are often invoked by the most materialist/rationalist members of our society.

I don't think any of this is from some deep, pathological masochism, but from the human capacity and willingness to sacrifice and suffer for a valuable purpose. Altruism in spite of pain, you could say. And wherever there's altruism to be exploited, you can be certain that the exploiters won't be difficult to find.

--p!

[DustMolecule]

14. No, suffering "in and of itself" is useless

I also must STRONGLY disagree with your basic premise when you ask the question, "Is suffering linked to redemption?" You stated that:

Mother Teresa.....she was opposed to actually alleviating their suffering

That's just an incorrect statement and lacks an understanding of Mother Teresa and her work.

From Mother Teresa's book, No Greater Love, she states:

Suffering will never be completely absent from our lives. So don't be afraid of suffering. Your suffering is a great means of love, if you make use of it, especially if you offer it for peace in the world. Suffering in and of itself is useless, but suffering that is shared with the passion of Christ is a wonderful gift and a sign of love. Christ's suffering proved to be a gift, the greatest gift of love, because through his suffering our sins were atoned for.
----------
Also, this statement about the Pope:

Reportedly, he thought he had redemptive qualities and he wanted the world to see it.

I don't believe this is a correct statement either. You've been on this board long enough to know that "reportedly" is a highly suspect term (especially THESE days...) ;-)

-----------

I can only guess at 'where you're trying to go' with asking your question. I can only offer/add this to your discussion. Suffering has nothing to do with redemption. LOVE has EVERYTHING to do with redemption. And Love is 'long-suffering', but it's not the suffering that's important, it's just a quality of love.

1 Corinthians 13

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have no love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cesae; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

--------

[Dookus]

15. Mother Teresa did

not believe in administering pain medication.

"the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ". - Mother Teresa


Once she tried to comfort a screaming sufferer: "You are suffering, that means Jesus is kissing you!" The man got furious and screamed back: "Then tell your Jesus to stop kissing me."


She raised millions upon millions of dollars, and not a dime of it went to relieving pain.

As for the Pope, this is from the Catholic News Agency:

The Pope is "first and foremost, a Christian pastor who is going to challenge us with the message of the cross - the message of Good Friday and Easter - until the end."

The senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington commented on how contemporary Western society seeks to avoid suffering at all costs.

"Embracing suffering is a concept alien to us," he observed. "And yet suffering embraced in obedience to God's will is at the center of Christianity."

He compared the way the Pope is living his suffering with the way Jesus accepted and lived his Passion. "The Christ of the Gospels reaches out and embraces suffering as his destiny, his vocation - and is vindicated in that self-sacrifice on Easter.

"That is what John Paul II, not a stubborn old man but a thoroughly committed Christian disciple, has been doing this past month: bearing witness to the truth that suffering embraced in obedience and love can be redemptive," he wrote.



http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=3446

[GOPBasher]

16. I think it would, IMO. n/t

[trotsky]

17. This seems to be more important to Catholic theology than Protestant.

At least from my experience growing up as a Lutheran.

If suffering were redemptive, then we should all be exposed to roughly the same amount. But we're not - some people live long lives, never endure much of anything, and die peacefully in their sleep. Others, like children with cancer, live short and painful lives.

I agree with you, Dookus. Suffering is never good, let alone "good for the soul."

[Lerkfish]

18. Not being catholic, I'm probably the wrong person to reply, but

I don't think protestant churches expect suffering in and of itself to be redemptive, rather that suffering sometimes happens, and our attitude to it or how we grow as we live through it can bring spiritual maturity. I cannot imagine that alleviating or preventing suffering could be a bad thing in any way shape or form. The whole concept of Charity is to do just that, alleviate and prevent suffering, so it would greatly surprise me if the catholic church, which has always been big on charitable efforts, would be against alleviating suffering.

However, I am ignorant of everything about Catholicism so I could be wrong to speak for them here.

[LisaLynne]

19. I would say that ...

needless suffering is pointless -- such as not taking pain medication when you're in pain and there's no reason not to or purposefully hitting yourself over the head with a hammer. That's just dumb.

However, that being said, I have to say that some of the worst parts of my life have really made me who I am and I wouldn't want to change that, even if I could. Now, if I had purposely gone out and messed up my life for the sake of doing it in order to suffer, I would say that would just be silly and completely without merit. However, having survived a lot of bad stuff has made me more compassionate, for example.

I also think that, human to human, no matter what your personal view of the world is, we have an obligation to each other to make sure that we do all we can not to cause the suffering of another and to help them out if we can when they are suffering. That's why I'm on this side of the political spectrum. :) Which is also why I have a problem with those who use "god's will" or "karma" as an excuse to do nothing to help.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"

Real grinding suffering leads to depression and hopelessness, but if you've ever met up with college students who have always had the path cleared for them, who have never been allowed to suffer discomfort or frustration, students who, when asked, "What's the most stressful thing that ever happened to you and how did you handle it?" in the course of a study abroad interview, look blank or say, "Coming to college and having to wake myself up in the morning and do my own laundry," you'll begin to wonder if maybe just the right amount of suffering is necessary for forming a person's character.

Lacking the instincts of animals, we learn from experience, and suffering forces us to tap or develop our inner resources, learn to cooperate or ask for help, and develop empathy for others in trouble. It makes us examine ourselves and what we are doing and wonder about alternatives.

Nobody wants to suffer, but in retrospect, some of my worst times have been valuable learning experiences.

[Dookus]

21. I don't question

that people can learn and grow from all of life's experience. But some branches of Christianity, and Catholicism especially, believe that suffering will bring people closer to God. I think it's nonsense.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

22. In some cases it does, but

in some cases it has the opposite effect.

I've seen it work both ways.

[kwassa]

23. I also think there is a difference between chosen and unchosen pain

Choosing to go through difficult and painful experiences for a larger purpose can certainly be redemptive.

[Zhade]

24. Redemptive of what, exactly?

NT!

[Lerkfish]

25. The larger purpose, presumably.

although his statement was a little cryptic.

I assume he is referring to altruism, or some form of it..perhaps martyrdom?

If he is, then I would think that choosing to suffer in order to benefit or save others would be a case of suffering that is also redemption, not the suffering in and of itself, but the reason for suffering.
This is a contrived possible example: if there were terrorists or a fascist regime, who intended to kill or torture some person, and you said "take me, instead", that would be a case of choosing to accept suffering in order to redeem (or rescue) another person.
In that instance, Christ said "no greater love hath a man, than to lay down his life for his friends" IF that is so, then in this instance, the person would not only be rescueing his fellow man (redeeming them), but would presumably be redeeming his own soul through the selfless and heroic act.

That's at least one example I can think of, if I am interpreting the other poster correctly.

If I am incorrect, hopefully they will provide a better explanation.

[Dookus]

26. In the standard definition -

does it relieve sins and/or bring one closer to God?