More on Sin & Suffering

I’d like to formally introduce you to my other antagonist, a gentleman who goes by the moniker God of Biscuits.

He hasn’t left any comments around here for quite some time, but I still encounter his peculiar “wit” with fair regularity at Bloghogger and at hoody’s site. But he did see fit to deposit a few choice words on my last post (which was on the topic of global warming). His remarks focused on one sentence in my closing paragraph about the general link between sin & suffering.

I posted previously and at some length on this link way back on May 8 of this year in a post called “Offer it up…” and more recently (September 6) in the post What “caused” Hurricane Katrina? I don’t recall whether he read those or not. Any comments he may have left have been archived by HaloScan and I’m not able to access them. [You can read those posts yourself (scroll down) if you wish.]

I’ll duplicate his present comments (and my replies to them) here [this seems to really tick him off for some reason] and then I’ll offer some further elucidation afterward.

------------------------
(Quoting me) Sin is the cause of all suffering

Well, march your ass on down to any children's hospital or any oncology hospital and please tell all those people they're just sinful.

You're a christian gem.

--God of Biscuits 10.25.05 - 12:18 am
------------------------

Suffering is the result of sin. Any given individual's suffering may be the result of either his own sin or someone else's, or a combination of both.

Not everyone is the cause of his own suffering. Each person's sins affect not only his own life and person, but everyone with whom he comes in contact, and in fact (at least to some degree) the whole world. Stones tossed into a pond don't merely sink to the bottom, they send ripples across the whole body of water, and if the ripples are large or frequent enough, the banks can be eroded and things that live along the shore can potentially be destroyed. A man who is aware he has a communicable disease and yet remains unconcerned about those around him whom he may infect is responsible for their loss of good health. The directors of a company that uses hazardous or deadly chemicals can be responsible for degrading health and environmental conditions within the community and beyond if they are careless in their use or disposal of said chemicals or agents. Etc., etc. Stop acting like an imbecile.

--the Green Flash 10.25.05 - 9:07 am & 10:26pm --[2 comments edited together]
------------------------

Before you were saying that A -> B.

Now you're changing it to say that B -> A.

You said, and I QUOTE: "Sin is the cause of all suffering" (your emphasis).

So. Cancer.

If those poor bastards had just stuck to the 10 commandments and whatever parts of Leviticus you buy into, they'd be A-OK healthy.

that's exactly what you're saying.

You stated it unequivocally.

And then you change your mind. How cavalier.

--God of Biscuits 10.26.05 - 12:04 am
------------------------

I changed nothing. You are refusing to understand (or are pretending not to). Your logic is defective: you are drawing a false inference. Your analytical method is too rigid (perhaps your brain is becoming ossified).

All suffering (including cancer) is caused by sin—somewhere. Every sin causes (or in some way contributes to) suffering—somewhere. Attempting to determine or judge exactly whose sin is at the root of what suffering is (in general) a vain and futile exercise. I nowhere said that a given person’s suffering is always the result of his own sins, as you seem to think.

What’s important is (a) to avoid sinning yourself and (b) to give aid to anyone else who is suffering (to the extent you are able), not try to figure out which sin (or who committed it) that contributed to which guy’s suffering.

--the Green Flash 10.27.05 - 12:18 am
------------------------
------------------------

OK, that’s it. Now please understand that we (myself, hoody and others) have been around the block on this sort of thing time and time again with Mr. Biscuits and the result is always the same. He doesn’t seem to hear what we are saying, but rather baits us with taunts and accusations without any apparent interest in what we are really trying to communicate. His typical behavior is that of a playground bully--attempting to intimidate and not concerned about anything but his own opinions, attitudes and desires which, to him, trump all else. He’s very predictable, too. (I can’t always predict when he’ll show up, of course; but when he does show, the point and thrust of his remarks are, well, unremarkable.)

I’m not here to convert him or anyone else who steadfastly refuses to acknowledge God or His revelation. I’m not attempting to prove anything. My purpose is merely to state what has been revealed by God (through the prophets before Christ & through the Church He established) and then to make a few observations & draw some inferences on my own from it (for whatever it’s worth). Faith in God & His revelation is my first premise. It is not a conclusion to an argument; it is a “given.” I cannot prove it (beyond pointing to how it all fits and hangs together), nor do I try to. (If it could be proven it wouldn’t be faith, but empirical knowledge.) And yet, Mr. Biscuits keeps showing up with his demand to “prove it [in scientific or mathematical terms].” Sorry.

Personal faith in God (and by extension, trust in the revelation He gave) falls into 4 basic categories: (a) you receive it & accept it as true; (b) you receive it and accept it provisionally (while you “check it out,” searching for the truth); (c) you are entirely ignorant of it (you never received it, through no fault of your own); or (d) you did receive it at one time, but subsequently chose to reject or ignore it (for whatever reason). People sometimes move between these categories (& there may be others, but these serve to illustrate my point) at various times in their lives. At present, I am in category (a), while Mr. Biscuits is (as near as anyone can tell) in category (d). (I know he doesn’t like categories; I guess they cramp his style. But that’s how I see it. Don’t ask me to prove it.)

Regarding the specific taunting reference he made to hospitals, I will not try to trace the pathology of a particular cancer (or any other disease or natural calamity as an immediate or proximate cause of suffering) step-by-step back to sin X, Y or Z committed by person A, B or C. It doesn’t work that way. Sorry if I gave the impression that I could, but I don’t think I did. I think (judging from Mr. Biscuits’ manifest M.O.) that he was just looking for some excuse to attack me and try to make me look foolish, and this time, this is the excuse he found. But I don’t mind. We’re called to be “fools” for Christ’s sake anyway (1 Cor 1:18-31; 3:18-19; 4:10). I hope I didn’t disappoint anyone.

It’s easy for nearly everyone to see how some sins cause some suffering. (Our criminal justice system routinely pursues this connection with rigor.) A single murder can send huge shock waves through an entire community (or even a whole nation). (And there’s no telling how many smaller sins by many individuals may have led eventually to the one murder.)

This requires a bit more effort, but most people can at least intuitively grasp a connection between the greed (avarice) and/or laziness (sloth) of a relative few and the suffering caused by (for example) the environmental effects produced by careless disposal of certain materials and irresponsible exploitation of some natural resources (e.g. by some directors, executives or managers, and even line workers in manufacturing & energy industries).

We don’t always see the short- or long-term effects of the sins we commit. The murderer may not see (or even think about) the manifold suffering of his victim’s children or grandchildren. But that does not obliterate the connection between his sin and the suffering it caused. A reasonable person can understand this with ease. Such a person may also recognize that some adverse environmental factors (resulting from the greed or laziness of some irresponsible businessmen) may have eventually facilitated the onset of some cancers in some people. (I am speaking here in general terms to illustrate a general principle. I am not trying to prove anything, but only pointing out that there is a real connection between evil choices/actions and suffering in general, even if we don’t happen to see it and can’t trace it directly—or even acknowledge that the choices/actions in question are evil.)

Now the propositions that all suffering is caused by sin and that all sin causes suffering isn’t readily apparent. They are derived from divine revelation. I recognize & accept divine revelation as true. Mr. Biscuits does not. I cannot force him to accept the gift of faith in divine revelation any more than he can “prove” to me that such faith is altogether unreasonable. We are at an impasse.

I came to this realization some time ago, so while I may occasionally respond to his accusations, allegations, attacks and distorted fits of logic (as in the present instance), I don’t attempt to engage him (i.e. instigate any discussions—pick fights—with him). The manifest differences & barriers between our respective worldviews make rational discourse logically impossible. They are mutually exclusive and utterly irreconcilable.

Well, as the old song goes, “Somethin’s gotta give.” I am unlikely to change my perspective regarding the Catholic faith (and by God’s grace, I never will). Biscuits should have realized this by now. So unless there is some potential for change on his side, I am mystified by his occasional but persistent forays to this and other [Catholic] sites on the Web. I don’t drop in on his blog & leave snide comments (at least not any more). I don’t pester him. He doesn’t have to come here if my material offends his sensibilities.

Is it that he feels some compulsion to attack me as a stand-in for the Church he hates—am I simply a symbolic focal point for his rage? Or is it possible—am I so obtuse—that I misunderstand him? Is his act of spiritual suicide actually a cry for help? Or does he just find it hilarious that he can so easily goad me into a complete waste of my time? I can’t tell. (Please note: I am not condemning him. I’m just trying to figure him out.)

Now don’t get me wrong: I don’t mind answering his questions, such as they are. In fact, I find it kind of fun (in a weird sort of way). There’s always an answer for them, although I confess I sometimes have to dig to find it. (There’s always an answer, but not always one he’ll accept.) I just wonder why he keeps trying.

“Somethin’s gotta give.”

I’m not going to change.

Will he?