That is interesting, C-los; "it depends on the suffering."
Okay, assume all suffering is bad, but it doesn't mean suffering only begets more suffering.
Job suffered extensively and in the end there was good. Even Jesus suffered for our sakes and good was the end result.
Then, is it consistent to say all suffering is bad?
"Suffering for God" is good only because the suffering will turn out for the good (i.e. the suffering itself is not good, but it does not dictate the outcome will be bad. This is akin to having faith in God). We'll call this having "faith."
Suffering for something else (i.e. not for God) may not turn out for the good, so it is still consistent to say that suffering is still bad.
So, saying suffering "is good" is absurd (i.e. it contradicts the statement suffering is bad).
This qualifies "suffering" on it's type then (i.e. the "depends" part you stated earlier); suffering for God, or suffering not for God.
Is the world then suffering for God? If one believes "no" then things may not turn out for the good from their perspective.
If one believes "yes" then things will turn out for the good (one who believes we are suffering for God and still thinks things will turn out for the worst has a questionable faith).
From the previous post, if believing in "free will" is a "bad choice," and believing in "no free will" is the "good choice" (shown by proof), then there are several possibilities here
1. Freewill => suffering for God or suffering not for God
2. No Freewill => suffering for God or suffering not for God
It seems then from 1.
"A bad choice" => "having faith"
or
"A bad choice" => "suffering not for God."
and from 2.
"A good choice" => "having faith"
or
"A good choice" => "suffering not for God"
Assign true and false values to each statements above, eliminate the false values and comapare the statements having its value as true.
Thus.
"A bad choice" => "having faith" (FALSE)
"A bad choice" => "suffering not for God." (TRUE)
"A good choice" => "having faith" (TRUE)
"A good choice" => "suffering not for God" (FALSE)
which leaves
"A bad choice" => "suffering not for God" (TRUE)
"A good choice" => "having faith" (TRUE)
These two do seem to be the prevalent thinking amongst people. But it seems many Christians "choose" to believe "A bad choice" => "having faith" (FALSE). i.e freewill => suffering for God.
To show "A bad choice" => "having faith" is false requires another logical proof, but this statement is akin to the Christian who continually falls into sin, repents and sins again, which can lead to a disingenous faith in Christ, or for that matter the Christian constantly suffering genuine repentance, which is no fun, but how does the cycle end?
Very interesting