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 how can forgiveness of sin come through grape JUICE?! Even the most expensive wine can never equal the value of a human life ? Further, if the WINE itself had redemptive property would Jesus not have said "This wine means the wine of the covenant" ? And more importantly, what about all the references in scripture to Christ's blood?
...

Jesus said about the wine:

for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.
Matt. 26:28

I think it means, the wine is the blood of the covenant, and it is poured for the remission of sins. Jesus doesn't say, it is metaphorically, nor that when you drink it, it turns into actual blood. Neither does he say that his actual blood was needed for the remission of the sins. That is why I think it should be taken as Jesus says it.

[1213]

...Jesus had authority to forgive sins (e.g God did it for him and remember he couldn't do it in Nazareth much because of lack of faith) ...

Where in the Bible it is said he couldn't forgive in Nazareth?

Matthew 13 58. And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith. ...

Why do you think making miracles is the same as forgiving? I don't think that scripture is speaking about forgiving.

[1213]

...
In Catholic theology, the use of wine in the Eucharist is not merely symbolic. Rather, Catholics believe that through the process of transubstantiation, the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ, while the appearances or "accidents" of bread and wine remain.

They believe they literally drink human blood.

I think that is sad, because it is not what the Bible teaches.

[boatsnguitars]

...
In Catholic theology, the use of wine in the Eucharist is not merely symbolic. Rather, Catholics believe that through the process of transubstantiation, the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ, while the appearances or "accidents" of bread and wine remain.

They believe they literally drink human blood.

I think that is sad, because it is not what the Bible teaches.

You are beginning to think like an atheist! Congrats!

You realize that people create fantastical tales from religious text that don't jive with reality. Here is how Catholic's themselves try to explain the Eucherist.

https://nwcatholic.org/voices/cal-chris ... tantiation

As you can see, it's very meaningful to them, and it's important to them that Jesus didn't lie when he said, "Eat of this, this is my body" - after all, Jesus said, "Speak plainly. Let your "yes" mean "yes"."

but, like too many religious beliefs they end on the same, exhausting conclusion: "Like the apostles, we have faith in the Lord’s words, that he meant what he said; but, also like the apostles, we will never fully understand those words."

That sounds like a mystery cult or hog wash - take your pick.

But, here's the problem. They base this belief on Tradition. Tradition is the same thing Protestants rely on when defending the historicity and veracity of the Bible. They rely on the hundreds of years between the events and the early Church Fathers that compiled the writings and turned it into the Bible we know.

And those early Church Fathers? They were Catholic. The Bible you claim to believe was compiled by men who believed in Transubstatiation, and many other wrong things. It should give you pause, at least.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Jesus had authority to forgive sins (e.g God did it for him and remember he couldn't do it in Nazareth much because of lack of faith) ...

Where in the Bible it is said he couldn't forgive in Nazareth?

Matthew 13 58. And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith. ...

Why do you think making miracles is the same as forgiving? I don't think that scripture is speaking about forgiving.

That wasn't the point #29

I wrote, "Well no. Sure, according to the Bible Jesus had authority to forgive sins (e.g God did it for him and remember he couldn't do it in Nazareth much because of lack of faith)" You asked me to substabtrioate that which i did. But the point is not that miraclesare the same as forgiving but that forgiving depended on the faith of the person to work. The implication is that nobody could stop God doing it if he wanted but he regulated what Jesus could and could not do depending on the faith of the person.

This is none of it true, of course, for me, but a story based on the Pauline idea that forgiveness of sins requires Jesusfaith to get right with God. Just as Jesus couldn't just be risen,stories had to be invented to show him walking about. So to illustrate Paul's forgiveness doctrine stories of Jesus forgiving sins had to be created with him doing a healing to show that he had the authority to forgive sins.

You doubt me and believe it's true? See the plot construction.

Matthew 9. 19 And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.
2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
7 And he arose, and departed to his house.

So they bring Jesus this immobile sick man. They say nothing because that would give the plot away. Jesus just forgives his sins which logically is not what they want, is it? But it is about Faith. And we have the stock bunch of Priests muttering against this claim so to prove it Jesus heals the man, which was reasonably what they would have asked in the first place.

It is also in Mark and Luke in Galilee and in John not in Galilee, but something very similar in Jerusalem.John 5. Another example of different events but similar? But why do we never get both events mentioned? I say unto you, this is evidence of the Gospels being constructed from existing material and stories adapted and edited to suit themselves and is not eyewitness or reliable report. The evidence is there for anyone willing to look.

[1213]

...
I wrote, "Well no. Sure, according to the Bible Jesus had authority to forgive sins (e.g God did it for him and remember he couldn't do it in Nazareth much because of lack of faith)" You asked me to substabtrioate that which i did. But the point is not that miraclesare the same as forgiving but that forgiving depended on the faith of the person to work. The implication is that nobody could stop God doing it if he wanted but he regulated what Jesus could and could not do depending on the faith of the person.
...

Lack of faith doesn't limit the rights Jesus has. Jesus still has the same right, even if the people would not have faith and would not receive the forgiveness, or benefit from it.

[1213]

And those early Church Fathers? They were Catholic.

Why do you believe so?

The Bible you claim to believe was compiled by men who believed in Transubstatiation,...

Please offer some good reason to believe so?

[TRANSPONDER]

...
I wrote, "Well no. Sure, according to the Bible Jesus had authority to forgive sins (e.g God did it for him and remember he couldn't do it in Nazareth much because of lack of faith)" You asked me to substabtrioate that which i did. But the point is not that miraclesare the same as forgiving but that forgiving depended on the faith of the person to work. The implication is that nobody could stop God doing it if he wanted but he regulated what Jesus could and could not do depending on the faith of the person.
...

Lack of faith doesn't limit the rights Jesus has. Jesus still has the same right, even if the people would not have faith and would not receive the forgiveness, or benefit from it.

That isn't what I said. What i said was the Bible indicates that God limits what Jesus can forgive or not based on how God perceives the faith of the person. There are thus examples of how lack of faith limits what Jesuscoulddo or what, by implication, God would allow Jesus to do.

Assuming that nobody could stop God forgiving sins (or, as Jesus says, the easier task of healing someone)it is God's own decision to not allow Jesus to do the forgiving or healing, not the person's lack of faith compelling or restricting God in some way. It seems inescapable to me - it's either God's decision (and by implication, Jesus has some things kept from him) or God is either limited in nature (which makes one wonder how the heck He could have made a universe in which his own power was limited) or limits himself by a decision, not by the condition of a person.

That is I do not think it reasonable to have God do the impossible like make a square circle. But to forgive the sins of even a faithless person is not impossible for God, but he makes his own rules.Of course the decision is based on the faith of the person but that person does not limit God even if God then limits jesus (who it seems actually has no divine powers unless given them by God.

Feel free to prove this all wrong .

[TRANSPONDER]

And those early Church Fathers? They were Catholic.

Why do you believe so?

The Bible you claim to believe was compiled by men who believed in Transubstatiation,...

Please offer some good reason to believe so?

I believe that many 'Church fathers' (not all - e.g Marcion was a heretic) argued against heresy even before it became a dogma of Roman Christianity, the basis of Catholicism.This just as the 12 and Paul were not exactly like modern Christians, that is what they were considered to be, just as the Church fathers are considered to be Catholic. Even if the Bishop of Rome was regarded by them as the supreme head of the Church, the doctrines were those.

[boatsnguitars]

And those early Church Fathers? They were Catholic.

Why do you believe so?

The Bible you claim to believe was compiled by men who believed in Transubstatiation,...

Please offer some good reason to believe so?

Admittedly, I was 'speaking in shorthand'. You are probably aware of the Council of Trent and its impact on the Canon. The Council of Trent was a pivotal event in the history of the Catholic Church, but it had a significant impact on Protestants as well.

Prot's were using a number of different Canon's, and this included many other books not in the current Canon (Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, and the Infancy Gospel of James). Also, many were debating the Antilegomena (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation).

The Council of Trent established - finally - the Canon for the Catholic Church, but also, established the books used by the Protestants (including the Antilegomena). It was Catholic Priests that determined this, in response to Protests from the Prots, obviously, but they still made the final call - and that's the Canon you have today. (You might say, "Oh, but the Canon was set much earlier!" Well, no, because - then - why was there a Council of Trent to establish the Canon? It may have confirmed some earlier Canon's but it still wiped out a few Canon's - but it definitely set the Prot Canon in stone.)

Additionally, the council's reaffirmation of the doctrine of Transubstantiation was another point of disagreement for Protestants. Many Protestant denominations rejected the idea of Transubstantiation and instead held to the belief in the Eucharist as a symbolic representation of Christ's sacrifice. But, it is clear that the men who set the Canon were affirming the books that early Church Fathers established as Canon (despite protests by Prots), and they believed in Transubstatiation.


And, I'd love to talk about how all of this was based on tradition, and interpretation of earlier men who also had some pretty wild beliefs - who represented the Church, and then considered heretics only a few years later (Marcion, et al).

But, you knew all this...