Suffering needs to be defined accurately. To see it as just being unpleasantness is a form of objectifying the victim for it is more than that. It is the degradation of the victim by violently objectifying them – violence acts on them like object, makes them feel like objects. Depression for example makes you the same as if you were an object or nothing or worthless.  It all amounts to much the same thing.  That is the secret of its destructiveness. For that reason, rejecting God should be seen as a duty. No good purpose can justify suffering.  Pain maybe.  Suffering no.  Suffering is not about warning you like pain is.  It takes pain and even turns it into something hideous. 

To in any way, to even partly condone suffering, is easy enough done when you cannot really know how anybody else is suffering and what their experience is exactly.

Surely enough, Christianity says different! It even goes as far as to say that Jesus chose to be murdered on a cross for our sins to show us that he sees value in suffering. The value is never in the suffering but in the person.

Jesus did claim to have come to die that way and to be the Son of God and allegedly God himself.  That puts a stamp on the Christian attitude.  It is his fault and he should be cast out into the yard for bringing that message to the world.

If atheists reject God for they see suffering as useless that is good for they are affirming the person.  If a person does not matter then their suffering does not matter.

It is also good if the atheists hold that anything that deliberately allows it to happen like a God is worthy only of scorn and condemnation.  It is good that the atheists have the compassion to react that way.

To see suffering as something you would fight regardless of what God thought about it good or bad is even better. To reject God as an atheist is to rise to being something better than the concept of God. The atheists who are so enraged at suffering that they would lash out even at God and who are driven by this fire to do heroic things are to be admired above all the Mother Teresas. The rage is to be encouraged for though it is nice to be happy, being happy when others suffer is not acceptable. You should be upset by it.  Your happiness cannot last anyway if you see that people are not going to get angry enough to change society for the better.

There is no such thing as suffering bringing out good in a person. The person must have the good in them in the first place to be able to respond to suffering that way. Or maybe they only think it's a response. Sometimes the devout manipulate them to feel that way.  Feeling defeated and depressed does not mean that the suffering coming to feel strong and willing to fight for their happiness is a response. One thing happening after another does not prove that they are linked as causes.

There is a close relationship between saying that God lets evil happen for a purpose and trying to feel good about how humanity does not do enough about it either.  It is a placebo for a stained conscience and causes much damage.  God's plan is made responsible for humanity's failures.  As failure is natural and we have weakness this happens so easily.  To say it is God's plan definitely includes the notion, "God gives me so much strength but not enough to fight better for the innocent."  God makes our weakness if he is real.
Suffering is useless in itself. We praise the person for being good through suffering simply BECAUSE we see suffering as useless.

So far we seen that far from showing evil fits God, God itself is an evil doctrine.  While it is true there is no right not to be offended, there is a right in this case.

No Copyright