How can God be justified in allowing innocent suffering, even to bring about greater good?

[blase6]

It’s really not. It’s important to have an accurate understanding of the context and proper application of terminology. You are thinking about God’s justice in terms of what happens in this life. That is an improper starting point. If you can’t move beyond it, then you will never be able to find a suitable answer.
If you only ever try to think about God’s attributes in human terms, you will never be able to even begin to grasp them.

They are the same in that they are both about allowing evil at one point because of later good. Unless it is not inherently unjust for God to allow evil, this is “the ends justify the means”.

Not so much a different definition, more of a different scope. We look at something as unjust, and from our limited perspective it is. God’s perspective is not limited though, He sees the ramifications of everything through the whole of history. He sees how each action and choice will affect an individual. With that in mind, it is not unreasonable to conclude that what we see as unjust suffering may be a necessary aspect of a person’s journey.

But it is OK for God to allow unnecessary evil to befall us while it is wrong for us to do so. Doesn’t that mean that His justice is fundamentally different from ours? Also, no suffering is necessary for us because God could have preserved us from original sin.

Also, no, God does not owe us any respect. We don’t deserve any. He does chose to love us though, in spite of that.

It’s a hard truth, I guess.

 

[RedFox0456]

Let’s say that by justice I mean “what ought to be” and injustice “what ought not to be.” That’s simple.

How do you know what “ought to be” and “not ought to be?” By what objective standards are you determining this?

Why must there be no benefit to the individual? You can experience the fruits of your own love without being selfish.

You may experience the fruits of love, but if you are doing something to gain those fruits specifically it becomes selfish. The intent behind the action makes the difference. For instance, someone puts a gun to your head and says to give him the contents of your wallet vs you just wanting to give someone some money to help them out. One of those is done out of love and one of those is done out of fear.

Again, how is this not the case in real life? I bet there are more than a few Catholics who obey God out of selfishness or fear! Are you denying the reality of being “scared straight”, obeying out of fear of punishment, etc?

There are people who obey the law in real life from fear of punishment. You’re not wrong. In the case of people who are simply following morality in an attempt to maximize their outcome, I do not believe they are choosing God out of love, and I think He knows that as well. In fact, this has happened before where the culture became obsessed with following The Law and not really living out the commandments in a spirit of love.

So when your Mom threatens to not let you have chocolate cake unless you stop being loud, she is committing evil?

My argument was threats or force. If you actually feel threatened and emotionally vulnerable by not getting a piece of cake that’s on you. So let’s go to a better fit. You are starving to death and someone comes along with some food. He then entices you with the food and threatens that if you do not do exactly as he says then he will not give you any. That is evil because not getting food in this situation is actually life-threatening. Similarly, saying that a life of peace and protection are available, but only if you do exactly as God says, would be evil. Because the alternative is in fact life-threatening. Severe illness, starvation, violence, fatal accidents, etc. would all be awaiting you if you do not obey.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

They are the same in that they are both about allowing evil at one point because of later good. Unless it is not inherently unjust for God to allow evil, this is “the ends justify the means”.

Except for that allowing something to occur does not equate to willing it. The “ends justify the means” argument is used when one personal actively chooses an evil action to obtain some good. God is not actively willing any of the injustice, He is simply allowing it to occur out of respect for our free will. He then takes what we give Him and makes something good out of it. Even in those instances where God allows suffering to bring somebody to Him, He does not actively will the suffering of that individual, but He does allow it for the positive affect it will have on them.

But it is OK for God to allow unnecessary evil to befall us while it is wrong for us to do so. Doesn’t that mean that His justice is fundamentally different from ours? Also, no suffering is necessary for us because God could have preserved us from original sin.

Again, you are missing the aspect of God’s omnipotence. From our limited perspective, some suffering may seem meaningless, but that doesn’t actually make it meaningless. It just means that we limited humans cannot see the meaning behind it.

You’re still trapped in thinking of this in purely human, limited, and linear terms. You cannot see the branching cause-and-effect web that a particular bit of suffering may be involved in, or what its end will be.

As for your assertion that God could have preserved us from original sin, how? The only way to ensure that no one ever sins is to remove the capacity to sin, thereby removing free will. Sin God desires for us to love Him freely, removing free will would literally defeat the purpose of our existence.

It’s a hard truth, I guess.

You’re right, it is hard. In today’s world, at least in the west, we are brought up with this false sense of entitlement. This clouds the reality of God’s gift of life, freely given, which we have no right to make any demands on. It is a hard truth to learn, but it’s also very beneficial to come to terms with this fact. Once you’ve accepted it, it makes the wonder of God’s gifts all the more amazing.

 

[De_Maria]

How can God be justified in allowing innocent suffering, even to bring about greater good?

God doesn’t bring about innocent suffering. Satan does.

Allowing the innocent to suffer seems to be an injustice, even if greater good could be brought out of it.

This is why, God Himself, took on our suffering in the Crucifixion.

I see the argument made that God is justified in allowing evil because He can bring about greater good, but that argument is not convincing to me. If God can both be just and allow innocent suffering, then what is justice?

Justice is based upon law. And law is a standard of good. Those who meet the standard are considered just.

God set the standard for good in Creation. He made Creation, good. It is Satan who introduced suffering and death. But God turned suffering and death into His servants for good. Before Christ died upon the Cross, death had consumed the world. But Jesus conquered death by suffering and expiating the sin of the world and by dying and coming back to life.

Hebrews 2:15 and free those who through fear of death had been subject to slavery all their life.

Thus, death was no longer the conqueror.

1 Corinthians 15:55 Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”

Thus, God is Just because He is essentially the Hero, who is saving us from the destiny that Satan wishes for us.

 

[Raxus]

This doesn’t answer the problem of how it can be just for God to allow the innocent to suffer. If it really is unjust, but is necessitated by giving people free will, then giving people free will is unjust.

But without free will, people wouldn’t be people. And if your answer is “well, God shouldn’t have made people” then you are ignoring all of the good and wonderful things about being alive and loving others that the world has to offer. Your statement doesn’t stand up to logical scrutiny.

 

[Benadam]

Before the fall, Adam suffered loneliness. "it is not good that the man is alone."This suffering happened to an innocenth person. It preceded a planned development in human perfection.

 

[fisherman_carl]

The catechism states that every part of Christianity is in some way an answer to the problem of evil and suffering. There is a mystery to it and we do not or can not have all the answers because we are limited. But one thing Christianity does give us is hope for an eternal glory that is so great that St Paul writes he doesn’t consider the sufferings we experience in this brief life to be worth comparing to it. God’s answer to the problem of evil is that he is going to come and make all things right in the end when He comes to judge the living and the dead. This mean that someone who innocently suffers and dies in this life, like children with cancer, has hope that God will make it up to them in spades in the next life. And someone who inflicted suffering on others will receive their punishment too.

The atheist on the other hand has no such hope. He only has the suffering and the death.