"True suffering — whether in death, disaster, or disease — is united by the fact that we hate it. Our beings reject it, our minds refuse to comprehend it, our bodies are sickened by it, and it’s all a simple matter of definition: To suffer is to experience that which we do not want to experience."

What does it even mean to suggest that our "beings reject it," or that "our minds refuse to comprehend it?" What does it matter what "our beings" do or do not do in the face of their suffering? They will experience it regardless and know they are experiencing it however stoically or hysterically they experience their suffering. And comprehension also is not important to experience of suffering. When I am in my Brazilian Jiu Jitsu class during the last rounds of the night, in a terrible position against a tough fresh opponent I grasp fully the reason for my suffering. It doesn't mean I am not suffering, or that such comprehension matters. Understanding can make suffering more bearable at times, but not all the time (as when I look up to see the round time nearer to the end of a 10 minute match in which I am having a tough time, vs seeing it at eight minutes fifty-nine seconds to go).

But looking closer at my example, those tough times are something I kind of want to experience, need to experience to get better in my art. So can I be said to be suffering? Not according to the author. However I would invite him to deal with a 260lb opponent for 10 minutes and get back to me on the quality of that experience. Suffering also isn't simply definitional because it is an emotional response to specific stimuli, and the expectations surrounding the duration of said stimuli. Simply saying suffering is to experience that which we don't want to experience doesn't sufficiently cover the kinds of experiences we call suffering. For instance I didn't want to experience an article on suffering that was poorly reasoned and specious. However I read it anyway. Did I suffer? I have some problem calling it suffering given the kinds of things people really do suffer. But maybe I did. Suffering is not characterized in a simple binary way, suffering vs not-suffering. Rather suffering exists on a gradient from very minor suffering, to major suffering.

Does a patient who understands the broad details of cancer and the nature of chemotherapy, and radiological therapies suffer?

There is also a lot of heavy weather made of the "purpose of suffering." Mr Barnes seems to think there needs to be a point great than, these experiences are unpleasant, I will take action to correct them to the best of my ability." There are clear reasons why evolutionary processes would have taken care to develop organisms with such drives to limit their pain and reduce their suffering, over organisms that didn't have such drives. Those organisms with the desire to reduce and eliminate their pain and suffering probably left more descendants than those that did nothing about it. Hence we live in a world populated by organisms that do their best to not suffer. Does there need to be another explanation other than that?

Exactly! The entire premise that understanding the cause or purpose of one's suffering makes it not qualify as actual suffering is ridiculous. Understanding may help in coping with the suffering, in the sense that it may mitigate the psychological aspect of the suffering to some degree, but that's it.

Quote from my comment above: In the last case, however, there is unfortunately, more emphasis on
the penitent, guilt laden recognition of the 'sin', when in Guy Finley
for instance, as well as in Buddhism, the emphasis is on the positive
development of the person.

I concur, and believe that the Buddhist psychology including meditation and mindfulness is specifically directed to that purpose: i.e. transformation of character. My point about Christianity is that the transformation process is not restricted to this, but is philosophical and 'cosmological' as well.

Actually, I would suggest that Buddhism puts far more emphasis on transformation than Christianity does.

Some people might think that this idea of Nietzsche's, (with which I agree with you that he does not think the transformation to the ubermensch requires 'God',) might conflict with idea of 'Eternal Recurrence', in which the same thing repeats itself in an eternal metaphysics. However, I took note when I read Nietzsche, that he definitely put this possibility as a hypothetical only. He was in the midst of convincing someone that if they did not 'work'???? towards transformation, they should consider the possibility that their present state could be thought of as an eternal recurrence. His ubermensch, by the way was not the Nazi dream, but the overcoming of all the negative and troubling causes of psychological (spiritual?) suffering in one's life.
When it comes to transformation, (besides the now known transformations that take place within the cosmos), I believe Christianity emphasizes this more than any other religion. This is true from the fulfillment of the Old Testament, through the concept of 'repentance' which means 'change'. In the last case, however, there is unfortunately, more emphasis on the penitent, guilt laden recognition of the 'sin', when in Guy Finley for instance, as well as in Buddhism, the emphasis is on the positive development of the person.

In considering whether this emphasis is due to what is regarded as the 'real' person or not, I am still comparing Christianity with the atheistic Buddhism, the latter of which replaces the Other as God, with a concept that what we strive for is to overcome our ego or false self, (as tied to the world/cosmos of samsara) and become our already existing pure, eternal 'real' self which is nirvana. The only trouble there is that the 'individuality of the soul/person' known in Christianity is lost in the transition/transformation. We become nebulous nothings!!!! (My understanding).

And that transformation does not require god.

Why does God have to work in only one mod or the other?

I suppose there is no way to prove that God does not send hurricanes or earthquakes or tsunamis to punish whole countries. And I suppose it is possible that God allows (or causes) people to be maimed in accidents or to be stricken with cancer or Alzheimer's to punish them for their sins. If you want to believe in this kind of God, you are welcome to. It does, of course, mean that anyone who is the victim of some disaster or disease has to wonder if they did something wrong. And also it must make good people who have troubles wonder if the healthy, rich, and powerful are God's favorites. I recently told a story of a woman I had known who said she told her daughter, "God must love you so much because he allows you to suffer so much." This kind of thinking allows you to give the same explanation for complete opposites. You are suffering greatly because God loves you so much, or you are suffering greatly because God is punishing you. Or you have good health and prosperity because God is rewarding you, but on the other hand the Old Testament often raises the question of why the wicked prosper and the good suffer.

So you have a God who sometimes rewards the good and punishes the wicked, and sometimes allows the wicked to prosper and the good to suffer. If something good happens to you, it may mean you are either good or wicked. If something bad happens to you, it may mean you are either good or wicked. As I said, if you want to believe in this kind of God, you are welcome to. I don't see where it gets you or anybody else to explain either doing well or doing poorly as some kind of sign from God. It allows you to make up anything you want to explain any phenomenon as either some kind of positive or negative sign from God.

It's kind of like a medical test for Disease X, and when you get the result of the test, the same result can be interpreted to prove that you have Disease X or you don't have Disease X.

Brainwashed from birth...or indoctrinated if you like.

Kook research we'll and truly debunked as such.

That which doesn't kill us makes us stronger is a famous saying by
German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. This quote has reasoning that
suffering is an inevitable part of life thus human beings have developed
many ways to try to ease it--one of which is bestowing upon it
transformative powers.