The problem of pain

[FinalEnigma]

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the problem of pain; There is indisputably evil in the world. If God is all powerful and benevolent then why is the evil there? This is of course a simple phrasing of it, but I don't feel the need to do into great detail as we are most likely all familiar with it. My question here is the following:

How does Judaism answer the problem of pain?

PS. If you are a christian, answering would be meaningless.

[FinalEnigma]

...or wish to maintain that Cnorman's response is not the Jewish position, then you are off topic.

He is Jewish, I am Jewish, he cannot speak for Judaism, I cannot speak for Judaism. There is no manual for being Jewish. If you don't like my offering then fine, I'll unsubscribe from your elite thread.
I will repeat, though, that pain isnt a 'problem' unless you (egoically) see it as such. If you think that 'god' made a mistake, talk to It, don't whine to me (us, here) about it!
Good day.
Pffft!

Oh come now, that was uncalled for. I had no reason to assume you are Jewish, but rather reason to assume that you are not as you are not in that user group, and I was only aware of two Jews on this board. Had you identified as Jewish, I wouldn't have even mentioned anything.

Further, I don't think it classifies as a whine to ask how thousands of children starving to death in the world right this very minute is acceptable to God.

From what I hear, in Judaism God is considered to be morally responsible for his actions, and you have yet to show me how starving children enriches your, or their, life.

Also, I don't call pain a problem. I call a benevolent omnipotent God who deliberate allows/inflicts needless pain a problem. Given Cnorman's answer, it seems not so much a problem with Judaism. Your answer however, is the exact same useless answer handed out by christians.

if pain is necessary for pleasure, how much pain? Pain of the level cnorman spoke of? if that is the case then please allow to place clothes soaked in acid upon your eyes, while piercing them with needles as you hang upside-down to allow you to become able to experience pleasure. If not, then why does it exist/occur?

Is it necessary for one to starve to death to be able to understand pleasure? would you like to try that?

If God is omnipotent than pain is not an off/on switch. He determines the degree, he determines the methods, and he watches it happen. If you wish to give the response of 'pain is necessary for pleasure' then please be able to justify the amount and severity of pain in the world.

[Nameless]

...or wish to maintain that Cnorman's response is not the Jewish position, then you are off topic.

He is Jewish, I am Jewish, he cannot speak for Judaism, I cannot speak for Judaism. There is no manual for being Jewish. If you don't like my offering then fine, I'll unsubscribe from your elite thread.
I will repeat, though, that pain isnt a 'problem' unless you (egoically) see it as such. If you think that 'god' made a mistake, talk to It, don't whine to me (us, here) about it!
Good day.
Pffft!

Oh come now, that was uncalled for. I had no reason to assume you are Jewish, but rather reason to assume that you are not as you are not in that user group, and I was only aware of two Jews on this board. Had you identified as Jewish, I wouldn't have even mentioned anything.

Apology accepted. I am not a joiner of 'groups'.

Further, I don't think it classifies as a whine to ask how thousands of children starving to death in the world right this very minute is acceptable to God.

Depends on Perspective.
An incessantly repeated question (throughout the millennia), such as your's, could be considered 'whining', but I'd be happy to retract the 'whining' comment as trivial.

From what I hear, in Judaism God is considered to be morally responsible for his actions, and you have yet to show me how starving children enriches your, or their, life.

Sorry, the only 'morality' that I know of is that in certain people's minds. A very Perspectival thing. A whole spectrum of 'morality'. The only 'morality' that god can 'know' is that which is perceived by certain Perspectives. God can have no 'actions' and be 'perfectly symmetrical', "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow". That is an anthropomorphisation (actually, it is 'idolatry' to give god 'qualities') to build a god in our image, with our feelings and our morality. The bible is full of it.
Children (ooooohhhhhh) or anyone else starving, is evolution; not all can survive. It is part of life. The living die. Did 'god' make an 'error' according some vain notion? Unless the universe is your making, how is it that you judge and find 'reality as it is' wanting? Is your comfort level a criterion of 'universal error'?
Perhaps 'starving children' enrich the lives of some preachers that collect money to 'feed' them? If you feed children that the land cannot support, and they breed, who's going to feed their starving children? Nature has a way of balancing things out, but she doesn't necessarily give a crap about our delicate sensitivities.

...then please be able to justify the amount and severity of pain in the world.

'Reality' need not be 'justified'. That what 'is', is, is 'justification' sufficient.

Your problem seems to be with the ridiculous anthropomorphic 'god' that the bible has created. It is all paradox because it is all bollox!
A 'god' cannot have any 'qualities' whatsoever; no 'omnis', no 'is' anything.

Your answer however, is the exact same useless answer handed out by christians.

In which case, I won't further waste our time.

[cnorman18]

...or wish to maintain that Cnorman's response is not the Jewish position, then you are off topic.

He is Jewish, I am Jewish, he cannot speak for Judaism, I cannot speak for Judaism. There is no manual for being Jewish. If you don't like my offering then fine, I'll unsubscribe from your elite thread.
I will repeat, though, that pain isnt a 'problem' unless you (egoically) see it as such. If you think that 'god' made a mistake, talk to It, don't whine to me (us, here) about it!
Good day.
Pffft!

Oh come now, that was uncalled for. I had no reason to assume you are Jewish, but rather reason to assume that you are not as you are not in that user group, and I was only aware of two Jews on this board. Had you identified as Jewish, I wouldn't have even mentioned anything.

Apology accepted. I am not a joiner of 'groups'.

Further, I don't think it classifies as a whine to ask how thousands of children starving to death in the world right this very minute is acceptable to God.

Depends on Perspective.
An incessantly repeated question (throughout the millennia), such as your's, could be considered 'whining', but I'd be happy to retract the 'whining' comment as trivial.

From what I hear, in Judaism God is considered to be morally responsible for his actions, and you have yet to show me how starving children enriches your, or their, life.

Sorry, the only 'morality' that I know of is that in certain people's minds. A very Perspectival thing. A whole spectrum of 'morality'. The only 'morality' that god can 'know' is that which is perceived by certain Perspectives. God can have no 'actions' and be 'perfectly symmetrical', "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow". That is an anthropomorphisation (actually, it is 'idolatry' to give god 'qualities') to build a god in our image, with our feelings and our morality. The bible is full of it.
Children (ooooohhhhhh) or anyone else starving, is evolution; not all can survive. It is part of life. The living die. Did 'god' make an 'error' according some vain notion? Unless the universe is your making, how is it that you judge and find 'reality as it is' wanting? Is your comfort level a criterion of 'universal error'?
Perhaps 'starving children' enrich the lives of some preachers that collect money to 'feed' them? If you feed children that the land cannot support, and they breed, who's going to feed their starving children? Nature has a way of balancing things out, but she doesn't necessarily give a crap about our delicate sensitivities.

...then please be able to justify the amount and severity of pain in the world.

'Reality' need not be 'justified'. That what 'is', is, is 'justification' sufficient.

Your problem seems to be with the ridiculous anthropomorphic 'god' that the bible has created. It is all paradox because it is all bollox!
A 'god' cannot have any 'qualities' whatsoever; no 'omnis', no 'is' anything.

Your answer however, is the exact same useless answer handed out by christians.

In which case, I won't further waste our time.

You know, for someone so quick to chide others for their "egoic dismissiveness," you are also remarkably quick to disdainfully sneer and scoff at the points of view of others - and to bristle and stamp off in high dudgeon when someone takes exception to your own.

[Nameless]

You know, for someone so quick to chide others for their "egoic dismissiveness," you are also remarkably quick to disdainfully sneer and scoff at the points of view of others - and to bristle and stamp off in high dudgeon when someone takes exception to your own.

Your agenda's showing, Charles.
Exactly what did your 'response' to my post contribute to the discussion? Have I upset your feelings? Was there something in the post specifically to which you wish to respond/argue or is it a general feeling of upset and you feel the need for a 'cheap' ad hom?? If there is something specific to which you'd like to refer, relating to the topic, please, feel free, but your tone says that there is more going on then simple intellectual discussion.
If you have a personal problem with me (or whatever 'tone' you might perceive), why don't you just man up and PM me rather than doing your laundry in public.
See, dear, no bristling or stomping and no dudgeons. Bye bye.

good day

[blipverts45]

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the problem of pain; There is indisputably evil in the world. If God is all powerful and benevolent then why is the evil there? This is of course a simple phrasing of it, but I don't feel the need to do into great detail as we are most likely all familiar with it. My question here is the following:

How does Judaism answer the problem of pain?

PS. If you are a christian, answering would be meaningless.

I think the only "problem" is identifying that "pain" is a problem. By doing so it makes it into some kind of deviation from reality. The fact is that it (pain) touches everyones life. Is it problematic or just because we have chosen to address it as such? And if we label it as a problem have we not then created an "anomaly" of sorts which now creates a gap between those who have pain and those who might be free from it (at least at the moment). I theorize that if one would stand on a corner and ask everyone they meet what kind of pain they are expereincing today, that most, if answering honestly would be able to identify some kind of physical or mental pain.

[cnorman18]

You know, for someone so quick to chide others for their "egoic dismissiveness," you are also remarkably quick to disdainfully sneer and scoff at the points of view of others - and to bristle and stamp off in high dudgeon when someone takes exception to your own.

Your agenda's showing, Charles.

Oh? What "agenda" would that be? Please explicate.

Exactly what did your 'response' to my post contribute to the discussion?

I remarked on the odd disconnect between your professed attitude and the attitude that you plainly manifest. You denounce "egoic dismissiveness," but rather clearly "egoically dismiss" my comments and FinalEnigma's. You seem to recommend philosophical, analytical detachment and not taking things, especially pain, personally - and then instantly assume my comments about your position are personal attacks. That all seems odd to me, and relevant to the discussion. If an avowed pacifist advocated killing his opponents, that would be worthy of comment, would it not?

Have I upset your feelings?

What gives you that impression?

I'm pointing out an odd disconnect and nothing more. Only one of us appears to be offended and expressing anger - not to mention sarcasm and sneering disdain. That's rather my point.

Was there something in the post specifically to which you wish to respond/argue or is it a general feeling of upset and you feel the need for a 'cheap' ad hom??

What "'cheap' ad hom" is that? Quote, please.

I see nothing but my disagreeing with you and your responding with a flurry of implied insults, sarcasm, and, well, "egoic dismissiveness."

If there is something specific to which you'd like to refer, relating to the topic, please, feel free, but your tone says that there is more going on then simple intellectual discussion.

MY tone?!?

Again, please quote anything you found objectionable and explain why. All I can see is intellectual disagreement. You profess a detached and philosophical approach to understanding pain; mine is more existential and, I think, compassionate.


That is the disagreement. My secondary point is that you prefer to mock and sneer at my disagreement and essentially call me an idiot (see below) rather than address it in any meaningful way.

Perhaps that's what you think debate ought to look like. I disagree with that, too.

If you have a personal problem with me (or whatever 'tone' you might perceive), why don't you just man up and PM me rather than doing your laundry in public

See, dear, no bristling or stomping and no dudgeons. Bye bye.
good day

Let's take a look at YOUR tone, shall we?

"If you don't like my offering then fine, I'll unsubscribe from your elite thread."

"Elite"; sarcasm and a hostile, petulant reaction to disagreement.

"If you think that 'god' made a mistake, talk to It, don't whine to me (us, here) about it! Good day. Pffft!"

"Whine"; implied insult. "Good day. Pffft!"; snide, arrogant dismissiveness.

"Are you suggesting that my experience with 'pain' is so inconsequential that there couldnt be any validity in my words?"

Putting words in my mouth. Characterizing an intellectual disagreement as a personal insult.

""Oh, if only you felt the 'real' pain that I have known... you would think differently, like I do.""

Same.

"But since you have demonstrated a singular inability to understand the intended meaning of my words and intent, I understand where you are comming from."

Direct insult. "Singular inability to understand" can only mean "stupid." I am not, so I am not offended; but again, there is that odd disconnect.

"Children (ooooohhhhhh) or anyone else starving, is evolution; not all can survive."

"(ooooohhhhhh)"; mocking, sarcastic.

"In which case, I won't further waste our time."

Petulant, angry response to mere disagreement.

"You egoic dismissiveness has been noted. No need for response, I'm merely correcting a misunderstanding. If you "confronted" what I write a bit more "honestly", you might find it a bit harder to dismiss so facilely", also!"

Petty mocking and implied insult; open disdain and dismissiveness.

And just for completeness:

"...why don't you just man up and PM me rather than doing your laundry in public"

"Man up"; open insult.

"See, dear, no bristling or stomping and no dudgeons. Bye bye.
good day"

Sarcasm; patronizing; mocking.

And here, by way of contrast, are my responses to all this:

"In any case, none of this was the intent of the OP. The Problem of Pain has to do with the mutual exclusivity of an omnipotent God and a benevolent one. It seems a strange solution to the ancient Problem of Pain to declare that there isn't one."

"Show me where I suggested any such thing."

"I never said that either."

"I don't think that you do. I was suggesting that your attitude was excessively detached and philosophical, and I'll stand by that. I said, and say, nothing about you personally."

"I responded to your remark, repeated in your next post after this one, that "pain isnt a 'problem' unless you (egoically) see it as such"; and I invited you to explain it in the context of the examples I cited."

I think this is worth repeating as well, since it pretty much sums up my response:

"If you want to take my post personally, I suppose you may. That was not my intent, though, and I don't think your accusations that it was are warranted. It does seem odd that you can be philosophically detached about the subject of your post, but not about a response to it that gives a different point of view."

It's especially odd that you're still doing it after reading that.

One more thing: Noting that a remark is sarcastic or intended as an insult is not the same as being offended by it.

This is a very weird conversation. One of us seems to be reading a lot of personal hostility into the other's posts and firing back with both barrels blazing - and it isn't me.

I just wonder what is so ridiculous and contemptible about a more existential and, frankly, humane and realistic approach to this question - not to mention answering the OP as stated.

I can't speak for Judaism, nor do I claim to; but I could cite a dozen sources and authorities that would back up what I said as being among the most widespread and normative Jewish answers to this question.

Can you?

[FinalEnigma]

Cutting out all the personal stuff, let me try re-posting my questions/points.

if pain is necessary for pleasure, how much pain? Pain of the level cnorman spoke of? if that is the case then please allow to place cloths soaked in acid upon your eyes, while piercing them with needles as you hang upside-down to allow you to become able to experience pleasure. If not, then why does it exist/occur within the assumed framework of a God?

Is it necessary for one to starve to death to be able to understand pleasure? would you like to try it and see?

If God is omnipotent than pain is not an off/on switch. He determines the degree, he determines the methods, and he watches it happen. If you wish to give the response of 'pain is necessary for pleasure, and that is why God allows it.' then please be able to [strike]justify[/strike]explain the necessity for the amount and severity of pain in the world.

Italics and strike a modification for clarity.

[Nameless]

...

I hope that you feel better now. Get it all off your chest?
You have contributed nothing to the topic with your personal remarks here (but ugliness). In public, I repeat, is nowhere that anyone wants to hear about it. Keep it PM or keep it to yourself (as far as I am concerned). This is a place of ideas and critical thought, not your personal problems. Rather than citing my words with which you find fault and offer a logical and rational refutal, you personally attack me (ad hom). How unusual, considering your ordinarily well composed and non emotional rational conversations. Have I hurt your feelings somehow? I really don't need another stalker with a wounded ego.
Just move on, please. It'll pass.
Thank you
Good day

[FinalEnigma]

...

I hope that you feel better now. Get it all off your chest?
You have contributed nothing to the topic with your personal remarks here (but ugliness). In public, I repeat, is nowhere that anyone wants to hear about it. Keep it PM or keep it to yourself (as far as I am concerned). This is a place of ideas and critical thought, not your personal problems. Rather than citing my words with which you find fault and offer a logical and rational refutal, you personally attack me (ad hom). How unusual, considering your ordinarily well composed and non emotional rational conversations. Have I hurt your feelings somehow? I really don't need another stalker with a wounded ego.
Just move on, please. It'll pass.
Thank you
Good day

If you wish to complain about being on topic, it might help if your post was actually on topic itself. Further, if you so much feel that your conversation with Cnorman should be via PMs, then why are you posting it here in public?

...why don't you just man up and PM...

Also, I would like to observe, for no reason whatsoever, that flamebaiting, by following the explicit letter of the rules and deliberately attempting to provoke others into breaking them, is a rather pathetic use of one's time. And further that it is generally more effective when one does not fall into ones own insults.

So may we please be done with the rather futile attempts to be clever by a member who shall remain nameless and actually address the topic? Thanks.

Cutting out all the personal stuff, let me try re-posting my questions/points.

if pain is necessary for pleasure, how much pain? Pain of the level cnorman spoke of? if that is the case then please allow to place cloths soaked in acid upon your eyes, while piercing them with needles as you hang upside-down to allow you to become able to experience pleasure. If not, then why does it exist/occur within the assumed framework of a God?

Is it necessary for one to starve to death to be able to understand pleasure? would you like to try it and see?

If God is omnipotent than pain is not an off/on switch. He determines the degree, he determines the methods, and he watches it happen. If you wish to give the response of 'pain is necessary for pleasure, and that is why God allows it.' then please be able to justify explain the necessity for the amount and severity of pain in the world.

Italics and strike a modification for clarity.

[Nameless]

If you wish to complain about being on topic, it might help if your post was actually on topic itself. Further, if you so much feel that your conversation with Cnorman should be via PMs, then why are you posting it here in public?

I notice that your post isn't on topic either. Perhaps rather than displaying your (egoic) superiority here, you should have PMed me too...

So may we please be done with the rather futile attempts to be clever

I see that you aren't above your own 'futile' baiting attempts.
I guess that you aren't the poster boy for perfect behavior either!
hahaha I just love it!
Go ahead, last word is your's...