How would you respond to this question?

[sw85]

Where is the proof that all that “theological reflection” is based on reality? That it is more than just empty, wishful thinking? Show me the sufferers who prefer suffering just to give others the opportunity to become “virtuous”. Would you prefer the suffering? I seriously doubt it. If you have a toothache, don’t you run to the dentist? Or is it only other people’s suffering what you are willing to endure?

Let’s get something clear here. It’s not at all about what you, or I, or anyone else would “prefer.”

When you speak as if the highest value in the world is preference satisfaction you are implicitly embracing utilitarianism. I previously told you this is the wrong way to approach this theological problem. So you are essentially repeating the assertion I told you earlier is going to get you nowhere.

Again: it’s not about our preferences. You continuing to talk this way is kind of dishonest; you are just refusing to consider a theological problem in the terms of the theological paradigm it arises from, and then taking your refusal as evidence that the paradigm is bogus. Actually, you’re not even really doing that, you’re just sort of emoting, but that’s definitely the subtext of it.

Maybe we do not “deserve” anything. But a good, loving parent provides a good life to their children, not because they “deserve” it, but because they love those children. Look up what “love” happens to be, if you have time.

Listen: we are talking about vaster goods and evils here than mere physical pain or deprivation. Acting as if physical pain is the pinnacle of horrors is just more utilitarianism of the sort that will get you nowhere intellectually. I’m telling you it isn’t, therefore the “problem of pain” isn’t insurmountable.

Your argument here is duplicitous and emotive. “You’ve never had to suffer, man!!!” How do you know? And what’ve you done to earn yourself the right to three exclamation points and your own dedicated lane on the moral high road, hmm? Oh wait, I don’t care because it’s not relevant to our relatively academic discussion you’re needlessly personalizing (so don’t answer, because, again, I don’t care and it’s irrelevant).

Again, it’s not about me, or you, or whether I like the logical consequences of my belief. Do you think Christianity suits me? I’d much rather be out there getting drunk and picking up college chicks, like I was a year before I decided to become a Catholic. I’d much rather be punching people. I’d much rather not have to believe that the vast majority of everyone I know, including every last person in my family, is probably going to Hell – that I myself am not safe from it. I’d much rather belief the purpose of life is reducible to neuronal firings and the pleasurable qualia they produce, but I don’t. I’m not a Catholic because it suits me. It doesn’t suit me. I had to remake me to suit it. That’s what you do with truth.

You are essentially saying “I don’t like this conclusion” (and the implicit result is “therefore it must be false”). But who cares what you like? This objection might be relevant if what you like matters. It isn’t. If you think it does matter then you are missing the point about Christianity.

I take it that you’re abandoning your claim about justice, then?

Notice that you did not say a single word about justice in your response, when that was the only thing that your quoted post specifically mentioned and the only thing that my reply addressed.

You just moved the figurative goalposts by hiding justice in a corner behind a brick wall of previously unnamed “other stuff” and poetry.

I don’t even know what you’re trying to say here.

I have about 0 interest in cancer. My initial post here was directed toward someone raising the problem of evil. The problem of evil depends for its rhetorical force on the claim that there is no possible way to reconcile God’s goodness with the fact of evil in the world. My response demonstrates that there are, in fact, at least two possible ways [suffering as justice for sins; suffering as promoting greater goods], so QED.

That’s about it. You inserted cancer into my discussion of the problem, then complained that I didn’t address it, and are now complaining about the fact that I didn’t intend to address it. As far as I’m concerned, cancer is being seen here as a special case of the problem of evil which, for obvious reasons, I don’t regard as a problem. If it’s not a problem, I don’t care about it. Ultimately, the reason I say it’s not a problem is that I don’t presume to know the mind of God. Because he’s smarter and better than me. Do we really all imagine there’s no possible reason God would allow it – none whatsoever? That is monstrous and prideful presumption.

 

[capoly]

This is only a problem if one is attempting to define A.

But that is the issue. Without a proper definion we don’t know what we are talking about. The so called omnimax attributes are essential to talk about God. If they cannot be defined properly, there can be no conversation.

Nor does this problem leave A completely undefined.

Partially defined is like a “partially virgin”.

 

[capoly]

When you speak as if the highest value in the world is preference satisfaction you are implicitly embracing utilitarianism.

Everyone subscribes to utilitarianism (though not everyone realizes and/or admits it). We are all “goal-driven” beings. The only difference is what is the goal we want to achive, and what are the ways and means to achieve them.

Listen: we are talking about vaster goods and evils here than mere physical pain or deprivation. Acting as if physical pain is the pinnacle of horrors is just more utilitarianism of the sort that will get you nowhere intellectually.

The problem is not that you assert the existence of “higher goods”. I happen to disagree (after all we have a very different value system) but that is not the issue here. Even if I would accept your value system for the sake of the discussion, there is a real problem.The problem is that you treat other humans as ways and means to hope to achieve those higher goods. If you say that the pain and suffering is just a “tool” to allow others to practice charity, helpfulness, whatever, and thus without the pain and suffering this “greater good” could not be realized. Since they did not volunteer for their role, they are simply degraded to the role of “tools”.

According to the church (and in this case I fully agree with it) it is unacceptable to degrade others to the status of a tool, such an action would remove their human dignity. You are not allowed to use others no matter how grand that alleged (but never substaniated) grater good will materialze. Now, if you would use the usual theist cop-out, that God can do what he wants to do, and just because we are not allowed to “use” other humans it is perfectly ok for God to “use” them, then we can conclude this conversation right now.

If using other humans is immoral because using them is degrading, and the end can NEVER justify the means (as the church says) then this NEVER includes God, too. You cannot declare God as a special case, and still maintain that there are “absolute” moral rules.

I’m telling you it isn’t, therefore the “problem of pain” isn’t insurmountable.

By the way, the problem is not “pain itself”, it is the “unnecessary, gratuitous pain” what is the problem. And you cannot wiggle out using the fifth officer: “there is a perfectly good explanation for them, but you are just too stupid to understand it”. I really urge you to read all those answers. They are the best synopses of the different attempts to resolve the “problem of evil”.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But that is the issue. Without a proper definion we don’t know what we are talking about. The so called omnimax attributes are essential to talk about God. If they cannot be defined properly, there can be no conversation.

Welcome to ignosticism!

 

[WmB]

Because of “love”, mayhaps? Love gives, even if there is no “obligation” to do so. Love (agape) takes the responsibility to act on behalf of the others. That is what agape means.

You are mistaken about the meaning of agape, first of all.

Second, you are attempting to judge God by human standards. It doesn’t work that way. We are to meet God’s standards, not the other way around.

Third, the Creator is under no obligation to creatures. We, the creatures, are under obligation to God, although many people choose to reject that obligation totally (thereby cutting themselves out of eternal happiness) and most everyone else at one time or another or in one area of life or another try to ignore the details of the obligation in particular circumstances (and offend God, which has its own consequences).

It seems to me that many people assume that cancer has no purpose, or that suffering has no meaning or place in the Creator’s plan. How would we finite beings know the exact details? We can’t. However, the question has been addressed many times by better minds than those participating in this discussion, and the conclusion is clear: cancer and suffering are the consequence of our brokenness, and they do serve a purpose even if we don’t always know the specifics.

Finally, God did show love and mercy by sending the Son (whom many people actively reject, to their eternal peril). That’s agape.

 

[davidv]

But that is the issue. Without a proper definion we don’t know what we are talking about. The so called omnimax attributes are essential to talk about God. If they cannot be defined properly, there can be no conversation.

Partially defined is like a “partially virgin”.

Partially known is not the same as partially virgin. And to suggest it is seems to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[paul_c]

A person asked my husband, who asked me, and now I’m asking CAF: “If God is all powerful, all knowing etc. etc., then why doesn’t He just tell us the cure for cancer?”

If God is all powerful and omniscient, why did he allow Cancer to exist at all? What is the point of human suffering in the plan of a loving God?

I’ll give you a couple of perspectives which have only been partially touched upon. First of all, for an atheist, Human comfort is the highest possible priority because for them there is nothing more. But God values love above all. And love in the Catholic definition is akin to charity: doing something for the good of others without expecting anything in return.

The reason God allows suffering is because it brings with it the opportunity for love. I coached a teen aged girl in softball that contracted cancer. The whole community rallied around this girl and her family to the degree that she told me that despite the pain, that getting cancer was the best thing that ever happened to her. It really brought out the best in a lot of people and the girl and her family truly felt the love in ways far surpassing anything she had ever experienced in the past. And while not everyone who gets cancer feels this way, the example is very real.

You see, life is a test for all of us to see whether we will chose to do God’s will for us, which is to love, or not. Those that desire to love will ultimately end up in heaven, while those that don’t will be condemned. Everyone is challenged throughout life. with both success and failure, comfort and discomfort. Sometimes success in worldly terms ends up being the toughest test of all. Many are the rich and famous who never learn to love and end up miserable. And because they don’t need much, the successful worldly people don’t experience much love themselves. Remember, love is doing something for someone without expecting anything in return. If you don’t need anything, its hard for someone to do anything for you. In the end, those that have things, need to give love, while those in need receive love.

 

[Irishgal49]

Perhaps say “God probably did send us someone with the cure for cancer. Unfortunately he was aborted.”

Excellent point, how many geniuses were murdered??

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimzovik View Post
Perhaps say “God probably did send us someone with the cure for cancer. Unfortunately he was aborted.”

Its witty enough, but the question is a serious one that deserves a serious answer. The problem is that the questioner’s perception is far different than God’s. For God, love is paramount . For a secular person, comfort is all that matters…While the questioner sees suffering as a problem, God sees it is as an opportunity for love.

 

[capoly]

Partially known is not the same as partially virgin. And to suggest it is seems to be intellectually dishonest.

I did not say “partially known”, I said “partially defined”. Huge difference.

 

[capoly]

I’ll give you a couple of perspectives which have only been partially touched upon. First of all, for an atheist, Human comfort is the highest possible priority because for them there is nothing more. But God values love above all. And love in the Catholic definition is akin to charity: doing something for the good of others without expecting anything in return.

Even if that would be a good suggestion, you commit the same logical error that sw85 did. The sufferers did not volunteer for their role, and as such they are used by God as tools to trigger that love in others. According to catholicism “the end does not justify the means”, and therefore the outpouring of love does not justify the cancer.

Of course the example you gave is not typical, though obviously it happens. And I seriously doubt that the girl will say that the cancer was the “best thing that happened to her”, when the novelty of her situation will wear off, and she will die prematurely while her friends keep on living.

The so-called “greater good defense” has two problems. One is that the sufferer is used as a tool, which takes away their dignity (a major no-no in catholicism). The other one is that only a miniscule fraction of the sufferings will bring forth any kind of “good”. The proper form of the greater good defense would be to show that every instance of suffering logically brings forth some really greater good, which cannot be achieved if that suffering would be absent. Good luck with that.

Also I find it amusing that you guys think that you can speak for God in an authoritative manner, as if you had a direct line to God.

 

[capoly]

You are mistaken about the meaning of agape, first of all.

Am I now? Agape is acting selflessly and benevolently on behalf of someone else, without expecting anything in return.

Second, you are attempting to judge God by human standards. It doesn’t work that way. We are to meet God’s standards, not the other way around.

I employ one stanard for all sentient beings. Catholics keep asserting that there is absolute morality, which means that the same standard is applicable to everyone (and then they contradict themselves by trying to carve out a special case for God. Hypocrisy?). The goddess of Justice (Justitia) is depicted with a blindfold so she her decision is not influenced by the accused. You cannot win brownie points for contradicting yourselves. It is either hypocritical, if you are aware of what you doing, or much worse, if you are not even aware of it.

Third, the Creator is under no obligation to creatures.

Oh yes, he is. The created ones were not created with their consent, so it is the absolute responsibility of the creator to protect and keep them. The parents have the same responsibility toward the children - up until the children become adults. Even after that a good parent will come to the help of the children when it becomes necessary. God does nothing of the kind.

It seems to me that many people assume that cancer has no purpose, or that suffering has no meaning or place in the Creator’s plan. How would we finite beings know the exact details? We can’t. However, the question has been addressed many times by better minds than those participating in this discussion, and the conclusion is clear: cancer and suffering are the consequence of our brokenness, and they do serve a purpose even if we don’t always know the specifics.

How boring is it to see the same old, tired argument from ignorance. Can’t you come up with something novel?

Finally, God did show love and mercy by sending the Son (whom many people actively reject, to their eternal peril). That’s agape.

No, it is not agape, not by a long shot. Real agape does not expect anything in return. Even is one takes the story seriously, God did not “erase” the original sin, and he does not accept everyone into heaven - unconditionally. He requires worship, submission, adoration and does nothing to deserve it. There is no help for sick, no food for the starving, there is nothing. This is as far from agape as it can get.

 

[WmB]

capoly,

If you cannot be bothered to even look up the definition of “agape” and to understand what it means, if you cannot comprehend that an infinite God is not the same as a bigger version of mortal man, and if you don’t get that a finite mind can’t understand everything, then it seems to me that there is no point in my continuing to respond to you at all.

But here’s something to think about – it’s how you are coming across to me – and a recommendation for you.

“The next best thing to being really inside Christendom is to be really outside it. … The popular critics of Christianity are not really outside it. They are on a debatable ground, in every sense of the term. They are doubtful in their very doubts. Their criticism has taken on a curious tone; as of a random and illiterate heckling. Thus they make current and anti-clerical cant as a sort of small talk. … But that marks their mood about the whole religious tradition: they are in a state of reaction against it. … Their whole atmosphere is the atmosphere of a reaction: sulks, perversity, petty criticism. They still live in the shadow of the faith and have lost the light of the faith. … While the best judge of Christianity is a Christian, the next best judge would be something more like a Confucian. The worst judge of all is the man now most ready with his judgements; the ill-educated Christian, turning gradually into the ill-tempered agnistic, entangled in the end of a feud of which he never understood the beginning, blighted with a sort of hereditary boredom with he knows not what, and already weary of hearing what he has never heard. He does not judge Christianity calmly as a Confucian would; he does not judge it as he would judge Confucianism. In other words, I recommend these critics to try to do as much justice to Christian saints as if they were Pagan sages.” – G.K. Chesterton, Introduction to The Everlasting Man.

I highly recommend this book to you. I wish you well, and I hope some day to have a better conversation with you.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

capoly,

If you cannot be bothered to even look up the definition of “agape” and to understand what it means, if you cannot comprehend that an infinite God is not the same as a bigger version of mortal man, and if you don’t get that a finite mind can’t understand everything, then it seems to me that there is no point in my continuing to respond to you at all.

In the Christian context it has to do with love as revealed by Jesus. Before it was appropriated into Christian theology it also was used to represent a strong affection (non-romantic).

 

[WmB]

Some points that some of the atheists/agnostics in this thread seem to be missing:

First, the Christians who are responding here are not speaking “for God.” God speaks for himself, and always has. The question is, are you listening?

Second, God is not just a bigger version of a human being. God is infinite, and cannot be judged, let alone understood, by finite minds. We humans understand what God gives us to understand – if we are listening.

Third, God is very clear what he wants from us. A couple of examples:

Micah 6:8 You have been told, O mortal, what is good, and what the LORD requires of you: Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God.

Matthew 9:13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’

Luke 10:25-28 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered right; do this, and you will live.”

Notice that God does not “need” anything from us. He does not “owe” us anything. And yet, he says:

Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you, says the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you.

It only takes faith. Even then, God may say “no.” Why? We may never understand in this life. What about the poor, and hunger, and death, and poverty, and misery and suffering? Same answer. Part of what we are expected to do is to pray for relief for those afflicted by these things, and to do what we can for them. The purpose of prayer (at least of prayers of petition) is not to get God to change his mind. Prayer changes US. It is not enough to just pray – we are also expected to act, to the extent that we are able.

All those bad things exist, came into the world, because of sin. Romans 5:12

God does show his love for us. Not because he is obliged to, and not necessarily in the ways we might expect. But mainly:

Romans 5:8-11But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation.

One last thing. God does not send anyone to Hell. The damned send themselves to Hell by rejecting God, or by deliberately not doing what he asks. They choose separation from eternal bliss and happiness. God does not want anyone to go to Hell, but he will also not deny anyone their free will. He is merciful, but he is also just, and will give everyone what they chose. By accepting God, doing what God asks, we choose eternal bliss.

It’s all there in black and white, and you are free to believe it or not. As the knight in the movie said, “Choose wisely.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Some points that some of the atheists/agnostics in this thread seem to be missing:

First, the Christians who are responding here are not speaking “for God.” God speaks for himself, and always has. The question is, are you listening?
…]
It’s all there in black and white, and you are free to believe it or not. As the knight in the movie said, “Choose wisely.”

I’m actually not, but that’s a different topic. Actually there’s already a few threads discussing that. But thanks for sharing.

 

[paul_c]

Even if that would be a good suggestion, you commit the same logical error that sw85 did. The sufferers did not volunteer for their role, and as such they are used by God as tools to trigger that love in others.

The logical error here is placing people on the same plane as God. Of course the sufferers didn’t volunteer for their role. Neither do the healthy get a real choice. But that doesn’t make them tools. Both the sick and the healthy have a choice on how to react to their situation. And that’s the point, really. We all encounter challenges in life, both good and bad, happiness and suffering. If we love others when challenged, we pass the test.

According to catholicism “the end does not justify the means”, and therefore the outpouring of love does not justify the cancer.

I’m sorry, but you are misusing this teaching. It denies the concept that doing evil can be justified by some good that comes out of it. Contracting cancer is not a sin, it is simply part of life.

Of course the example you gave is not typical, though obviously it happens. And I seriously doubt that the girl will say that the cancer was the “best thing that happened to her”, when the novelty of her situation will wear off, and she will die prematurely while her friends keep on living.

You simply do not know this girl or her situation.

The so-called “greater good defense” has two problems. One is that the sufferer is used as a tool, which takes away their dignity (a major no-no in catholicism).

Why does suffering take away anyone’s dignity?. Everyone suffers at some point. And you certainly haven’t proved that suffering makes you a tool of God, anymore than not suffering.

The other one is that only a miniscule fraction of the sufferings will bring forth any kind of “good”. The proper form of the greater good defense would be to show that every instance of suffering logically brings forth some really greater good, which cannot be achieved if that suffering would be absent. Good luck with that.

The reason good doesn’t always come from suffering is due to the people effected. If people help those that suffer and the sufferer is open to the resulting love, then good absolutely comes of it, both for the sufferer and their helpers. If the sufferer becomes bitter and turns away those that would help, then good does not come of it. Keep in mind that a similar dynamic happens for those that are gifted with fame or fortune. If they become arrogant, everyone will hate them and no good will come of it, while if they show love with their gifts, they will be loved in return…

Also I find it amusing that you guys think that you can speak for God in an authoritative manner, as if you had a direct line to God.

You do realize that we aren’t speaking for God, we are merely repeating what God in the person of Jesus Christ taught his Church.

 

[paul_c]

Am I now? Agape is acting selflessly and benevolently on behalf of someone else, without expecting anything in return.

okay. I agree

I employ one stanard for all sentient beings. Catholics keep asserting that there is absolute morality, which means that the same standard is applicable to everyone (and then they contradict themselves by trying to carve out a special case for God. Hypocrisy?). The goddess of Justice (Justitia) is depicted with a blindfold so she her decision is not influenced by the accused. You cannot win brownie points for contradicting yourselves. It is either hypocritical, if you are aware of what you doing, or much worse, if you are not even aware of it.

Its nice that YOU set the standard for all sentient beings. But you are wrong in trying to employ your perspective to God. For you, death is the end of everything so you probably would say that God allowing you to die is the greatest evil he could do. However, for God, death is merely moving from one reality to another.so death is not an evil, it is simply a step .

Oh yes, he is. The created ones were not created with their consent, so it is the absolute responsibility of the creator to protect and keep them. The parents have the same responsibility toward the children - up until the children become adults. Even after that a good parent will come to the help of the children when it becomes necessary. God does nothing of the kind.

You are way out of bounds here. God provides everything you have: life, reason, free will, the skills you have, conscience. You are disappointed when God presents you with a challenge. Would you rather everything be handed to you and that nothing you did mattered?

How boring is it to see the same old, tired argument from ignorance. Can’t you come up with something novel?

And your argument is better? God is not just because he allows evil in the world?

No, it is not agape, not by a long shot. Real agape does not expect anything in return. Even is one takes the story seriously, God did not “erase” the original sin, and he does not accept everyone into heaven - unconditionally.

. if Go accepted everyone into heaven unconditionally, nothing you did would matter. Is that what you really want, a pointless life > Frankly, do you even want to go to heaven, knowing that to be there you would have to server God and your neighbor, on his terms not yours?

He requires worship, submission, adoration and does nothing to deserve it.

really? God did nothing to command your respect and adoration? How about the fact that he gave you everything you have? Including your life. And really, what can you give God, the creator of everything? nothing. When you submit to God, you are doing what you were made to do- which is how you reach true happiness…

There is no help for sick

Really? No one who gets sick ever gets better?

no food for the starving, there is nothing.

Really, No one is ever fed?

This is as far from agape as it can get.

Being angry with God isn’t really helpful, now is it?

 

[capoly]

The logical error here is placing people on the same plane as God. Of course the sufferers didn’t volunteer for their role. Neither do the healthy get a real choice. But that doesn’t make them tools.

The argument was (first introduced by sw85 in this thread) that the existence of suffering allows others to give their love, to help the afflicted, and this outcome justifies the means - which is the allowing of the suffering. And this allowing is what makes those people to become tools. Their suffering is used by God (don’t forget, this is NOT MY argument, it is yours) to “prod” others to become more loving, more caring, more virtuous, etc…

I’m sorry, but you are misusing this teaching. It denies the concept that doing evil can be justified by some good that comes out of it. Contracting cancer is not a sin, it is simply part of life.

First, narrowing the suffering down to cancer is incorrect (it was merely a good starting point). Second, if there is God, there are no “natural causes”. Everything is either directly performed or indirectly permitted by God. And indirectly permitting the suffering just so that others can grow in virtue is a typical “the end justifies the means”.

Let me point out again: I am not arguing here that there is no God. Nor do I argue that the existence of evil makes God evil. I am simply pointing out that the argument: “the existence of suffering allows others to grow in virtue” is unacceptable. There never was a good, rational argument to solve the problem of evil, and this one fails, too.

You do realize that we aren’t speaking for God, we are merely repeating what God in the person of Jesus Christ taught his Church.

Sorry, that is merely your own (collective) belief, which has never been substatitated.

 

[capoly]

The logical error here is placing people on the same plane as God.

It is a catholic teaching that we were created in the image of God, which is sentient, rational, moral beings. Now if “moral” means something when applied to humans, but means something totally different, when applied to God, then the catholic teaching is literally meaningless. God may be more powerful, more knowledgable than we are, but he is bound by the same morality as we are, if the phrase “God is benevolent” is meaningful. After all there are levels of power, levels of knowledge, but “loving” is binary: it is either there or not. There is no different rule-set for God. To assert that God can do whatever he wants is simply the “might makes right” argument, which is pail of fertilizer.

Of course the sufferers didn’t volunteer for their role. Neither do the healthy get a real choice. But that doesn’t make them tools.

The argument was (first introduced by sw85 in this thread) that the existence of suffering allows others to give their love, to help the afflicted, and this outcome justifies the means - which is the allowing of the suffering. And this allowing is what makes those people to become tools. Their suffering is used by God (don’t forget, this is NOT MY argument, it is yours) to “prod” others to become more loving, more caring, more virtuous, etc…

I’m sorry, but you are misusing this teaching. It denies the concept that doing evil can be justified by some good that comes out of it. Contracting cancer is not a sin, it is simply part of life.

First, narrowing the suffering down to cancer is incorrect (it was merely a good starting point). Second, if there is God, there are no “natural causes”. Everything is either directly performed or indirectly permitted by God. And indirectly permitting the suffering just so that others can grow in virtue is a typical “the end justifies the means”.

Let me point out again: I am not arguing here that there is no God. Nor do I argue that the existence of evil makes God evil. I am simply pointing out that the argument: “the existence of suffering allows others to grow in virtue and that fact makes the suffering justified” is unacceptable. There never was a good, rational argument to solve the problem of evil, and this one fails, too.

You do realize that we aren’t speaking for God, we are merely repeating what God in the person of Jesus Christ taught his Church.

Sorry, that is merely your own (collective) belief, which has never been substatitated.