Suffering

This is a topic that I don't actually know that much about, because I have little experience involving suffering. I have lived a fairly happy and contented life compared to most. Two loving parents, three siblings(not always so loving), great friends, and pretty awesome relatives who all share my belief in the one true God. So not much controversy, not much turmoil, just the average day to day stress. So when I talk about suffering, I don't speak from experience, this is mere speculation, inquiry, and thought.

We had a debate on campus tonight between Dinesh D'sousa(a Christian Theologian I suppose), and Bart Ehrmann(an Agnostic). The topic of this debate was Theodicy, which I believe they defined as the problem of suffering in the world when there is a God who could prevent it, and by our understanding of His nature, should prevent it.

An issue they did not really address is this: Why is suffering considered such a bad thing? I believe they did not feel this was a particularly controversial question, that everyone generally agreed that suffering is not good. However, I do not think I believe this. Keep in mind that I haven't experienced much suffering, so this belief may change as I mature. Anyway, back to my point. As far as mankind goes, I think suffering is necessary. Without suffering we would have no reason to try and better ourselves, to triumph through trials. Suffering, pain, turmoil, evil, these are all words that express the same necessity of man to overcome what puts him down. When we are oppressed, we are given the opportunity to endure, and to grow from the experience. Can we really say that suffering is such a bad thing? I mean, if growing up I had never burned my finger on the stove, or never fallen off my bike, and experienced that pain and suffering, would I have learned that some things in life hurt? When our bodies go through pain, like a burn or a cut, it grows back stronger. I feel that our minds are the same way. When we suffer, it hurts, but we eventually emerge stronger than we were before.

In addition to this, and I feel many would object to this argument, but without natural disasters and the general self-destructive nature of mankind, this world would be densely over-populated. Since humanity is essentially at the top of the food chain, there is not much to keep our population in check. With this in mind, I view hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and other such natural disasters to be a kind of population control. This may sound harsh to some, especially with the view of a loving God watching over us, but think about it. Without war, without genocide, without all the evil in the world that results in the deaths of so many people, and without the natural disasters already mentioned, how many people do you think would be on this earth? Personally, I think all the earth's resources would be depleted and we would all be dead or scavenging for an existence. pproximately 9,000,000 Jews were persecuted and killed during WWII, and that's just the Jewish population. Many many more millions were killed throughout the war. WWI had a similar amount casualties. And in the past, war has snuffed billions of live from this earth. Without these events, without this kind of suffering, the world would end.

There are many scientists and researchers that have concluded that humans, unlike the rest of the aniimal kingdom, have no sense of balance when it comes to population. In the animal kingdom, for the most part different parts of the food chain are kept in check by each other. If the wolves eat too much of their natural prey, there is less to go around and they begin to die of hunger, which allows the population of their prey to grow again. As the prey population grows, there is more food for the wolves, and their population grows again, and the cycle starts again. For humans, we don't participate in this cycle. If one source food begins to run low, we switch to another, grow our population, and expand. But I disagree with these scientists. I think that we do have checks and balances, and the main one is our self-destructive nature. We kill each other, through war, murder, and in some cases by accident. And that is what keeps us from over-populating our planet. So without suffering, humanity would cease to exist, in my opinion at least.

So when Bart and Dinesh were debating, it occurred to my friend Leroy Jenkins that they both agreed that suffering was necessarily a bad thing. And from I just talked about, I have to disagree with them. I think God allows suffering in this world because it is necessary. They talked about how in the prophets' books God causes suffering to try and bring His people back to Him. Bart could not comprehend why this would be. Think about it, if we lived perfectly content lives, with no suffering, no pain, and no loss, why would we ever turn to God? When life is going "as it should" for us, why would we need to rely on God for anything? Why serve Him? And why change anything? Life is going great just the way it is, I don't need God. When we suffer, as I said earlier, we grow from the experience. and I personally have grown from the suffering that I have experienced, such as: burning my finger, accidently cutting myself when I got my first pocket knife, or when I fell out of a tree, or got hit by a swing. What did I learn? That's stovetops are hot, that knives are sharp and shouldn't be pointed towards yourself, that the higher you are, the more it hurts when you fall, and that its never a good idea to walk in front of someone on a swing. These are all important pieces of knowledge, and I never would have learned them if I had nevered the suffered the consequences of my actions.

Which brings me to what I will make my last point. Throughout the Bible we see examples of people being judged for the wrongs they have committed. Sin has consequences, and those consequences are not something we will enjoy. The number one consequence is separation from our Creator, which should be enough to convince us to repent. But there are smaller consequences, many of which are dished out by government authority. We have our own laws, many of which are based off of those listed in Deuteronomy.

That's all I really wanted to say, and I hope it has caused you to think about the true nature of suffering, and its purpose in this world. I don't find suffering to be a good thing, by the way, but I don't find it to be a bad thing either, just a necessary thing.

Life

I was asked today when I thought life began. Specifically if it started at conception, since this is one of the biggest debates for/against abortion. As anybody reading this should know, abortion is the removal of the fetus from the mother's womb. The controversy is that if life begins at conception, then abortion is just another word for murder.

I didn't really have an answer for the person who asked me the question, mainly because I knew he would simply ask "Really?" to whatever I said and then laugh a little(not laugh, but kind of chuckle to himself), unless I happened to agree with his point of view, which I don't think I do. So I didn't see a point in giving him an answer.

As to my belief, I have come to the belief that every human life has existed since God created Man in Genesis. This is not to say that we are reincarnated, but rather that our souls don't come into being as we are conceived, but have existed since time began. A kink in my theory here is that some souls would be waiting quite a while, especially at this point. But I'm not focusing on that aspect of life. I mean to say that while the physical manifestation of our life begins at conception, our existence has existed since Genesis. So for me, abortion is murder, a denial of the right to live by those who were not denied that right. In a sense, I believe abortion is a way of saying "It's too bad my parents didn't have an abortion, or I wouldn't have to be going through this right now." Maybe that's a little drastic, I don't know. But if you were't denied the right to live, what gives you the right to deny someone else?

So to sum up what I've been saying, or I guess to restate it, I believe life began with Adam, and we began our existence at the same time he did. Our entrance into this world begins at conception, and thus abortion is equatable with murder. I guess that's all to say, I'll probably write more on the topic of life later this year. So all you people NOT following this blog can look forward to that.

Alienation

So the debate today in philosophy class argued about alienation and if we need to find a cure for it. The two sides are obvious, yes or no. The yes side took a very communist side and argued that all class systems, all divisions among people should be abolished, that everyone deserves an equal chance at doing what they want to do. This side argued that being forced into a certain career or lifestyle took away part of one's humanity, and thus such division should be abolished for the sake of humanity. The other side argued that division was not only necessary, but unavoidable. Man has a proclivity towards people who are similar to him, or have similar ideas or interests. Even in the face of equalization, where everyone has an equal chance, people with similar interests are drawn towards each other, and tend to divide themselves into groups.

People began arguing against the second side based on a larger scale. They seemed to be thinking purely in a governmental sense. The debater argued that natural leaders will always rise above others, and people will follow them. On a large scale this might not be the case, perhaps some natural-born leaders do not have the same opportunities of others to rise above entire countries, but they still tend to rise above the people around them in a local sense. William Wallace managed to rise above the Scottish people as he led them to war and freedom from England. This was a grand scale. He did not go to college, he never took classes on how to lead a revolution, and yet he was able to do so. Martin Luther, George Washington, Charlemagne; these are all people who rose up and led people to some goal. I don't have names, but on a smaller scale, in local settings, there are people who arise everyday in leadership because it is part of their nature. People who notice a problem in their hometown and seek to fix it. People who have a dream, and seek to make it a reality.

I think it is obvious which side I hold to. There will always be divisions among people, you will meet people that you just can't stand or can't comprehend. And then there will be people that you just connect with and understand. We naturally tend toward people who are like us, who share our ideas and hopes and interests. Even with the abolishment of official classes like they had back in Medieval Times, people will spearate themselves into groups, or cliques, and other people will be excluded from these groups. It's natural for humanity to do this, we can't help it. Such is life. The end.

Attractions

What is the basis for attraction between people? I have heard many different theories. I have heard that women are more likely to be attracted to a man that smells similar to her father. This might have been the case at one point, but unfortuantely with deodorants and perfumes and whatnot it is difficult to tell who smells like what. And perhaps this is why there is so much divorce? Women are attracted to a man because he wears the same deodorant as her dad, and it turns out that his real smell is much different. This would be more subconscious, and I don't think it is the case.

I have also heard that the predestination theories. That God predetermined who will be with who. Honestly, I would like to hold to this theory, because it gives me hope that there is someone out there for me, someone that I am meant to be with. However, this is less about attraction and more about predestination, so I don't this theory works either.

Personally, I have felt attracted to many different girls, and as far as I can consciously tell, they do not all have one particular thing in common. I have noticed that even with those crushes, the attraction would change based heavily on appearance. Maybe not looks, but clothing choice, hair styles, that kind of thing. I have noticed that I prefer pony tails(I don't know why, I just do), the same goes with flannel shirts, sweat shirts, bathing suits(who doesn't like bathing suits?), and this is all clothing choice(with the exception of the pony tails). This is what brought me to this subject. What do we base our attractions on? Are there more than one kind of attraction? I think so.

I think there are at least 2 kinds of attraction. Physical and emotional. With physical attraction, I am attracted to a pretty face, a hot body, smell, sound, etc. This can also take the form of the actions of another person, or the amount of time spent with them. This last somewhat transfers into the other kind of attraction, emotional. With emotional attraction, I see it as an attraction to the spirit, ideas, or emotions of another person. In this case, the more time you spend someone(typically of the opposite gender, I don't want to go into homosexuality in this post) the more likely you are to be attracted to them. At the same time, if you are already attracted to the person, you are more likely to become more attracted to them. This is not always the case, but it seems to hold true in most situations.

So with the physical attraction, how we get those predispositions to certain hair styles or clothing choices? Why do I like pony tails more than wearing hair down? Why do I like flannel shirts instead of T-shirts? I mean, you could make some deductions from those, but I know people who hate flannel-wearing people. So where do we get these attractions?

I still don't know, but I'm going to continue to ask the question until I find an answer, either within myself or from someone else or somewhere. Hopefully I have left you with some questions, because I don't want you to follow this blog, and I figure if I confuse you, you will stop reading my posts...