Christianity and Redemptive Suffering

[boatsnguitars]

Most Christians don't realize it, but suffering is a major part of their religion. They fetishize it (many Christians festishize it in both meanings of the word. Numerous accounts of priests physically and sexaully abusing young children are clear indications of how they view suffering as an invaluable part of their world view).

But I want to talk about the more academic view of suffering in Christianity: Redemptive Suffering. The "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" variety.

The idea of redemptive suffering is a concept that is deeply rooted in Christian theology. This concept suggests that suffering can have spiritual significance and can lead to greater understanding or connection with God. The idea is that through the experience of suffering, individuals can become closer to God and gain a deeper understanding of the nature of God's love and grace. Mother Theresa was the poster child for this, and her legacy of causing maximal suffering is legendary. She purposely denied money to build new hospitals, hire doctors and nurses and withheld life-saving medicine because she believed suffering brought people closer to God is their final, desperate hours. Her body count is absurdly high, yet Christians praise her for it.

Of course, it starts with Jesus showing the way:
One of the key biblical texts that supports the idea of redemptive suffering is the account of the Passion of Jesus Christ. According to the Gospels, Jesus suffered greatly on the cross, enduring physical pain and emotional distress in order to atone for the sins of humanity. In the Gospel of Matthew, for example, Jesus tells his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Matthew 16:24). This passage suggests that the experience of suffering can be a means of following Jesus and growing closer to him.

Another biblical passage that supports the idea of redemptive suffering is found in the letter of James, where the author writes, "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing" (James 1:2-4). This passage suggests that trials and hardships can be a means of testing and strengthening one's faith, ultimately leading to greater spiritual maturity.

In Catholic theology, the idea of redemptive suffering is closely tied to the concept of purgatory, which is a place or state of being where individuals who have died in a state of grace undergo purification before entering heaven. According to Catholic teaching, the sufferings experienced in purgatory are redemptive and can lead to the forgiveness of sins and the attainment of eternal life.

The concept of redemptive suffering has also been explored by a number of Christian theologians and philosophers throughout history. For example, the 20th-century Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote extensively about the idea of redemptive suffering, arguing that "suffering is an essential element of the Christian life" and that "it is only through suffering that we can enter into the fullness of the life that Christ offers us" (Theo-Drama: Theological Dramatic Theory, Vol. 5, Ignatius Press, 1998, p. 78).

Overall, the concept of redemptive suffering is a key theme in Christian theology, and is based on a number of biblical passages and theological concepts. While the idea of suffering may seem difficult or unpleasant to any rational person, Christians believe that it can ultimately lead to greater spiritual growth and understanding, as well as the attainment of eternal life. Christians will excuse all the suffering, all the evil because they believe it is for a greater Good.

This is one of the reasons Christianity is so poor at understanding moral values, especially when moral values are tied to harm. Most moral philosophers understand moral values in terms of harm, but Christians can't understand this since they feel harm is an integral part of the human experience. They applaud Peter for being crucified upside-down - increasing his suffering - because he thought being killed upright was an affront to Jesus. Imagine the depravity of thought that you have to debase yourself even more in your death! Yet, Christians love this story!

Christians love to say, "All the apostles suffered for the Faith! They all went willingly to their deaths, rather than recant" It's not "as if" they are saying it's better to suffer and die than live, they are ACTUALLY saying it.

As theologian James Cone writes, "The cross is the most empowering symbol of the Christian faith because it symbolizes the redemptive suffering of Jesus and the hope that such suffering gives to the oppressed" (The Cross and the Lynching Tree, Orbis Books, 2011, p. 27).

See that: "empowering". They think it's empowering. Contrast that to what, e.g., Humanists think empowers people: education, political involvement, self-confidence, personal relationships, etc.

1. What is redemptive suffering, and how does it relate to Christian theology?
2. What is the biblical basis for the concept of redemptive suffering?
3. How does redemptive suffering differ from other ideas about the role of suffering in spiritual growth?
4. In what ways can the idea of redemptive suffering be empowering for individuals who are experiencing hardship or pain?
5. What criticisms have been raised against the concept of redemptive suffering, and how have Christian theologians responded to these critiques?

(BTW, some have asked why my posts seem like school projects. I use them for my Bible study at my local Church. I edit out some of the things.).

[1213]

...But science has the evidence and the priests don't.

We have all the same evidence. The difference comes from what we think that the evidence means. That you think the evidence supports you, seems to be just your non-convincing opinion.

Oh yes, it was about Jesus not being able to forgive sins unless God allowed him to. That was substantiated because Jesus could not do many wonders in Nazareth because the people did not have Faith.

Thus it is clear that because of that, Jesus could not do the thing he used to show that he could forgive sins - to heal people. That matter rested with God, not with Jesus. This is what we get from the text, and even though you tried to fudge the issue talking about 'Rights', it is clear from the text that Jesus had limitations about what in practice he was not able to do (in Nazareth) and that he did not know he would not be able to do it.

Why do you think forgiving sins is the same as to heal people?

Sorry, I think you are wrong. Jesus had the same right to forgive sins, even if people would not accept or believe it.

[TRANSPONDER]

...But science has the evidence and the priests don't.

We have all the same evidence. The difference comes from what we think that the evidence means. That you think the evidence supports you, seems to be just your non-convincing opinion.

Oh yes, it was about Jesus not being able to forgive sins unless God allowed him to. That was substantiated because Jesus could not do many wonders in Nazareth because the people did not have Faith.

Thus it is clear that because of that, Jesus could not do the thing he used to show that he could forgive sins - to heal people. That matter rested with God, not with Jesus. This is what we get from the text, and even though you tried to fudge the issue talking about 'Rights', it is clear from the text that Jesus had limitations about what in practice he was not able to do (in Nazareth) and that he did not know he would not be able to do it.

Why do you think forgiving sins is the same as to heal people?

Sorry, I think you are wrong. Jesus had the same right to forgive sins, even if people would not accept or believe it.

We all have the same data, and we have the same conclusions from evidence. Yours seems to be based on science denial or fiddling at least, which after all isn't unusual in Bible -apologetics.

I will let your slight misrepresentation pass. Jesus uses healing people as a sign that he has the power to forgive sins. And before you say so, he doesn't use those words, but that is the point.

Mark 2.9 “Which is easier: to say to a paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, pick up your mat, and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...” He said to the paralytic, 11“I tell you, get up, pick up your mat, and go home.”

Also in Matthew 9. Not in Luke, as I recall.

[1213]

...Jesus uses healing people as a sign that he has the power to forgive sins. ...

Even if we would interpret so, it does not mean that he doesn't have that right, if all are not healed. People can reject the forgiveness, it does not mean Jesus doesn't still have the right to forgive.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Jesus uses healing people as a sign that he has the power to forgive sins. ...

Even if we would interpret so, it does not mean that he doesn't have that right, if all are not healed. People can reject the forgiveness, it does not mean Jesus doesn't still have the right to forgive.

We already dealt with this. Of course he has the 'Right' or he wouldn't have been sent there to do it. But clearly he cannot do just when he wants; God (who can arguably do it if he wants) decides whether or not on the basis of His judgement of the person's faith, Jesus gets to heal or not and as the passage suggests, forgive sins, too.