Does more suffering result in a comparable increase in compassion? Pinker suggests that exposure to violence inures people to violence and in fact reduces compassion.
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
cofty
Jgnat - Pinker's evidence for that claim is very compelling.
In a world where your life and the lives of others are precarious in the extreme, the death of others is more likely to be greeted with a shrug.
I have been doing a lot of reading about medieval England recently. Death from starvation, disease, plague, infection, murder or execution was only a moment away. Suffering was at it's zenith and compassion was all but absent.
It was as conditions improved that life became more valued. The increase in reading, enabled people to see world from the perspective of others and compassion began to rise.
ETA - "inure" good word!
-
jgnat
One of my small indulgences on this board; to use the full breadth of my language.
-
humbled
Psac,
You say that "Compassion doesn't have anything to do with the Golden Rule per se" ?
Compassion IS the Golden Rule.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is one biblical translation. One's personal experience is the instructor of course. We know what is good for ourselves and are enjoined to consider that this is likewise the same for others. What hurts me will likewise pain them.
The Golden Rule, also translated as "Love thy neighbor as thyself" was well illustrated by Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan. Whether or not the Samaritan had suffered himself at the hands of robbers, we do not know. We do not know whether or not the priest or the levite had ever been beaten. But the story says the Samaritan, when he saw the beaten man, had compassion on him.
The story in Luke 10 both tells us the meaning of the Golden Rule (compassion) and how far it is meant to extend.
But the rule is not concerned with the origins of suffering. It simply relates how we should relate to sufferers.
You may choose to believe that God will at some future date restore the dead who suffered and died. But this much I can see for myself: the world is full of suffering and humans do NOT always respond with compassion to the sufferings of others (again, see the behavior of the priest and the levite in Jesus' illustration). Therefore, suffering on the scale that was manifested by the tsunami is a profligate, callous waste of life if this was God's way of re-hashing a precept that is/was already familiar to most people on earth while He himself disregarded the good example of that god-damnedSamaritan.
If suffering proves the compassions of God and his existence, then I hope I burn in hell.
-
cofty
What would you think of a parent who killed their child's beloved pet so as to teach them the meaning of compassion?
-
Deputy Dog
Only 118 pages?
The question is NOT about suffering in general. It isn't about suffering caused by accidents or disease. It isn't about suffering caused by the actions of other humans.
It is specifically about the events of 26th December 2004.
That’s the problem with the little plan"B" god of moralism, he/it can be put in a moral box.
If you want to get specific, you need to get to know every detail of each and every person involed in the events of that day. I don't believe there is ONE single reason for the suffering of that day. I'm sure there are more reasons than people involved, and it had a different impact on every single one.
My sovereign God has His own reasons for every detail of every human being. If you think you have the time and bandwidth to discuss each and every one ( I know I don't), knock yourself out.
-
PSacramento
PSac - It's getting increasingly difficult to be generous and assume you are genuinely misunderstanding the topic.
All your many words amount to nothing more than, "Suffering can teach us compassion".
So what?
As I have explained to you very clearly at least 3 times this does not even come close to addressing the topic.
It is typical chrristian obfuscation. You answer the question nobody is asking because the actual question is too hard.
Your degree in theology seems to have turned you into a dispenser of facile god-talk.
Actually it DOES address that topic, but in general and specific terms.
You don't agree with it and I respect that, but your agreement or disagreement on whether it address the issue is NOT relevant.
Is there a reason for God to allow suffering? Yes, I should you there is.
You may not agree or think of it a good one or even one that is worthy of a bring called "God", but that is not relevant.
Compassion can NOT be developed without suffering and if suffering is the only way to develop compassion and compassion is a indespensible trait for humans ot have then they must be exposed to suffering.
Again, you may not agree or like that view BUT you can't say it isn't a valid one because it is.
You can't play the "God is love so He can't allow suffering because He is love" card because for that you would have to be able to define, without question, what it means when we say that "God is love" and that is another issue .
Again, I am not personally a fan of this view ( God permits suffering to develop compassion) but I personally can't find a NON-EMOTIONAL argument against it, at least not one that makes it NOT valid at all.
-
jgnat
"Compassion can NOT be developed without suffering..."
This is easily disproven. Young mothers develop attachment to their young ones (if all goes well), nearly all the time. The infant is defenceless and appealing in ways hard to define, though science has caught on to some of the tricks.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-ray-your-recent-book-mentioned-cuteness-and-made-me-wonder
-
PSacramento
com pas sion
noun
1. a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.
-
PSacramento
Passion = Suffering
Com= With others / together.
