Is suffering always evil?

[Richca]

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.

Not all suffering is due to sin.

Pain is an essential defence mechanism but you are right in your view about the potential value of suffering.

As the quotation says “and above all to the question of moral evil.” The origin of suffering and evil which humans experience is original sin, the first sin of the human race, of our first parents Adam and Eve which we read in Genesis. This fallen state which we call original sin is passed on to all their descendants, to all human beings born from the stock of Adam and Eve. So, ultimately, all the suffering and evils which humans experience is linked to the original sin of Adam and Eve and secondarily to our own personal sins.

“Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault of our first parents” (CCC#390)

 

[Richca]

If so why?

St Thomas Aquinas says "every evil in voluntary things [us humans] is to be looked upon as a pain [penalty, punishment] or fault. Moral fault has more of the nature of evil than pain as Dionysius states “To be punished is not an evil, but it is an evil to be made worthy of punishment.” God is the author of the evil of pain or punishment and punishment is according to His justice which is a good. God’s justice demands that sin should be punished. In this sense, human suffering can be virtuous if we either voluntary take upon ourselves penal works or voluntary accept with patience the trials and scourges God sends us in atonement for our own and other people’s sins. The punishments inflicted by God on us in this life either from our own sins or as a result of original sin are meant to be medicinal and directed to our eternal salvation if we accept them as such. Jesus Christ, of course, is our exemplar of patience in the midst of trials and suffering and of the satisfactory value of suffering. By his passion and death, he redeemed the whole human race. “He bore the punishment that makes us whole, by his wounds we were healed.” (Isaih 53: 5). The cause of human suffering is sin and this is intrinsically evil. The consequence of sin which is the evil of pain or punishment, we experience as an evil because it hurts, but it is according to God’s justice which is a good. Justice is a virtue and to make satisfaction for our sins is an act of virtue and justice.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Please give an example.

My pleasure. There is no logical necessity that the Ebola virus would exist. (To our best knowledge it was just a random mutation which made it so lethal.) If the virus would not exist, then lots of sufferings would be eliminated. God could eliminate this virus. This would be an example to eliminate a “natural” evil. Another example might be that a planned kidnapping is thwarted by a policeman who just happens to walk by and scares the kidnapper away. God could put an inexplicable “premonition” into the head of the policeman, so he would peek into that seemingly empty alley, thus preventing the kidnapping. This would be an example of eliminating a moral evil. I am sure you can come with millions more. It is very easy.

By the way the assumed intervention by God does not need to be spectacular, like coming down with a flaming sword to the rescue. It could be a very slight little “nudge”, unknown to all the parties involved, which would prevent the unnecessary suffering.

How do you assess reasonable doubt with regard to what is logically possible?

Whatever we, limited humans can do is logically possible.

The reasonable doubt comes into the picture when we look at an act, and try to figure out if the suffering it causes was necessary or not. We need to look at all the available information, and if we cannot find a justification for the suffering, then we rightfully conclude that the suffering was gratuitous.

Granted, we are not omniscient, but that is not relevant. We always make a value judgment based upon the available information. In the case when we see a drunken father beating his child into a bloody pulp, we do not “assume” that there might be a perfectly good, rational explanation, which will justify that action. If it looks like a gratuitous suffering, then it is a gratuitous suffering.

Why “so-called”?

Because the “free will” defense is one of the two major defenses when the “problem of evil” is discussed. The other one is the “greater good” defense. Neither of them is satisfactory. There are some others, of lesser importance.

I agree with the proviso that one is justified in permitting the** lesser **evil regardless of whether it is gratuitous (in the sense of “accidental”).

Cool. The question is: Any lesser evil will justify permitting that “evil”? Or is one obliged to eliminate as much evil as one can? Using the drunken father example, if we could prevent that beating altogether, or allow it to go on, but stop it before the child suffer lethal injuries, then the second one is not justified.

 

[tonyrey]

My pleasure. There is no logical necessity that the Ebola virus would exist. (To our best knowledge it was just a random mutation which made it so lethal.) If the virus would not exist, then lots of sufferings would be eliminated. God could eliminate this virus. This would be an example to eliminate a “natural” evil. Another example might be that a planned kidnapping is thwarted by a policeman who just happens to walk by and scares the kidnapper away. God could put an inexplicable “premonition” into the head of the policeman, so he would peek into that seemingly empty alley, thus preventing the kidnapping. This would be an example of eliminating a moral evil. I am sure you can come with millions more. It is very easy.

By the way the assumed intervention by God does not need to be spectacular, like coming down with a flaming sword to the rescue. It could be a very slight little “nudge”, unknown to all the parties involved, which would prevent the unnecessary suffering.

Whatever we, limited humans can do is logically possible.

There is no reason to believe God doesn’t prevent evil frequently but if He did so constantly it would defeat the purpose of giving us the power to choose what to believe and how to live. He has to be a Deus absconditus to some extent.

The reasonable doubt comes into the picture when we look at an act, and try to figure out if the suffering it causes was necessary or not. We need to look at all the available information, and if we cannot find a justification for the suffering, then we rightfully conclude that the suffering was gratuitous.

Granted, we are not omniscient, but that is not relevant. We always make a value judgment based upon the available information. In the case when we see a drunken father beating his child into a bloody pulp, we do not “assume” that there might be a perfectly good, rational explanation, which will justify that action. If it looks like a gratuitous suffering, then it is a gratuitous suffering.

It makes no difference whether the suffering has a moral or natural cause because in either case it is impossible to prevent all suffering without making it obvious there is a benevolent Power protecting everyone or even the vast majority.

I agree with the proviso that one is justified in permitting the** lesser **

evil regardless of whether it is gratuitous (in the sense of “accidental”).
Cool. The question is: Any lesser evil will justify permitting that “evil”? Or is one obliged to eliminate as much evil as one can? Using the drunken father example, if we could prevent that beating altogether, or allow it to go on, but stop it before the child suffer lethal injuries, then the second one is not justified.

It is impossible to know to what extent God intervenes but we do know that the vast majority of adults and children are not subjected to fatal punishment or injured or killed prematurely by natural causes. Leibniz remarked that houses are far more common than hospitals.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

There is no reason to believe God doesn’t prevent evil frequently but if He did so constantly it would defeat the purpose of giving us the power to choose what to believe and how to live. He has to be a Deus absconditus to some extent.

You mean, even more evil? As a matter of fact, I (personally) see no reason to believe that God ever interferes. But if he does, then he does it very shrewdly, by making sure that there is no trace (much less evidence) for the interference. So using this technique, he could interfere every time. If he did we would have no reason to assume any interference, we would see the kind, peaceful, quiet state of affairs as normal. Just like a superb car manufacturer, who creates cars which never break down. No one would assume that there is good car-genie, which constantly interferes to keep your car in perfect running condition, it would simply be taken for granted.

It makes no difference whether the suffering has a moral or natural cause because in either case it is impossible to prevent all suffering without making it obvious there is a benevolent Power protecting everyone or even the vast majority.

Interference is only assumed if there is sign that some other times it is missing.

It is impossible to know to what extent God intervenes but we do know that the vast majority of adults and children are not subjected to fatal punishment or injured or killed prematurely by natural causes. Leibniz remarked that houses are far more common than hospitals.

Don’t you think that even one Holocaust was more than enough?

But let’s play your rules. Suppose that a benevolent deity would always interfere on our behalf, and do it so spectacularly that we would be aware of this constant interference. Why is that a problem? We would be eternally grateful for such benevolence, we would praise that deity and give our heartfelt thanks for taking such good care of us. What is wrong with that? We would yearn to be constantly with such a wonderful, protective deity. We would do anything and everything to please that deity. It would not be seen as a burden, it would be our pleasure.

But we veered from the central problem. If pain and suffering can lead to some “greater good”, which greater good logically requires that certain amount of suffering, then the suffering is justified. But this is technology dependent. If the amount of suffering can be lessened without sacrificing the final good, then the suffering must be kept at a minimum. What is that minimum? With God’s omnipotence (able to do anything and everything) which is logically possible, all the pain and suffering could be eliminated.

Your objection above is unfounded. We would never realize that silent interference, because the interference would be the “default” modus operandi. One can only see the interference if it is missing at times. Now the “sometime” interference raises an even more serious problem. Suppose that two kids (Susie and John) suffer from some serious disease (cancer). Both are religious, both pray for a “miraculous” heal. Susie gets her wish, John does not. Why just one? Why not both?

If God allegedly performs such miraculous healings once every blue moon, that does not help us to view God as loving and caring and benevolent. If one believes that Susie was granted a miracle and John was not, then God can only be seen as capricious, selective and generally uncaring. I am aware of the usual rebuttal: “how dare you question God”? Please do not use it. It would be unbecoming to you.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no reason to believe God doesn’t prevent evil frequently but if He did so constantly it would defeat the purpose of giving us the power to choose what to believe and how to live. He has to be a Deus absconditus to some extent.
You mean, even more evil? As a matter of fact, I (personally) see no reason to believe that God ever interferes.

Don’t you think that even one Holocaust was more than enough?
According to what criterion?

But let’s play your rules. Suppose that a benevolent deity would always interfere on our behalf, and do it so spectacularly that we would be aware of this constant interference. Why is that a problem? We would be eternally grateful for such benevolence, we would praise that deity and give our heartfelt thanks for taking such good care of us. What is wrong with that? We would yearn to be constantly with such a wonderful, protective deity. We would do anything and everything to please that deity. It would not be seen as a burden, it would be our pleasure.

In other words we would all be sycophants incapable of shaping our own destiny!

But we veered from the central problem. If pain and suffering can lead to some “greater good”, which greater good logically requires that certain amount of suffering, then the suffering is justified. But this is technology dependent. If the amount of suffering can be lessened without sacrificing the final good, then the suffering must be kept at a minimum. What is that minimum? With God’s omnipotence (able to do anything and everything) which is logically possible, all the pain and suffering could be eliminated.

That would be true if God created lapdogs incapable of scepticism! The final good is our freedom to think for ourselves - without which we are incapable of being authentic persons.

Your objection above is unfounded. We would never realize that silent interference, because the interference would be the “default” modus operandi. One can only see the interference if it is missing at times. Now the “sometime” interference raises an even more serious problem. Suppose that two kids (Susie and John) suffer from some serious disease (cancer). Both are religious, both pray for a “miraculous” heal. Susie gets her wish, John does not. Why just one? Why not both?

God isn’t a slot machine! Miracles are not confined to people who pray. In fact the saints suffered more than most of us because they were prepared to sacrifice themselves for others like Christ.

If God allegedly performs such miraculous healings once every blue moon, that does not help us to view God as loving and caring and benevolent. If one believes that Susie was granted a miracle and John was not, then God can only be seen as capricious, selective and generally uncaring. I am aware of the usual rebuttal: “how dare you question God”? Please do not use it. It would be unbecoming to you.

There is no evidence that miracles are rare events. It is to be expected that spectacular cures are uncommon yet many recoveries from serious illness and imminent death are spontaneous. Modern medicine takes into account the whole person, not merely the symptoms. Negativity is a greater threat to survival, sanity and happiness than any other factor.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Pallas_Athene]

“even more evil” and “interferes” beg the question, implying that divine intervention is unnecessary and natural laws are sufficient to minimise evil. On what ground?

Huge misunderstanding.

From one extreme to the other! There is abundant evidence that miracles have occurred but the sceptic constantly appeals to ignorance by assuming all inexplicable cures and cases of survival have unknown physical causes.

Again: “what do you call a miracle”? Let me give you an example: All of a sudden all the TVs and radios turn themselves on (even the unplugged ones) and broadcast the following message: "On this day (date follows) at that time (time follows) the stars will be rearranged and display the first chapter of Genesis in every modern and dead language. Now that would be an unquestionable miracle.

According to what criterion?

I suggest you refrain from saying that one Holocaust was not enough, we need a new one… Saying is would earn you cheers in a neo-Nazi camp, but it would have very dire consequences everywhere else.

That would be true if God created lapdogs incapable of scepticism! The final good is our freedom to think for ourselves - without which we are incapable of being authentic persons.

I always thought that final “good” is to get to heaven.

God isn’t a slot machine!

You mean God is not a vending machine. A vending machine would give you the merchandise for your money. God is much more like a slot-machine. He takes your money, and does not give you anything for it - most of the time. He picks and chooses whom to help and whom not to help. The funny thing is that God is supposed to “love” us, more than we can ever know. I would be happy if God only loved us as a humanly good person with god-like powers would.

There is no evidence that miracles are rare events.

Actually, there is no evidence that “miracles” happen at all.

But you are deviating from the topic again. The definition of benevolence is: “not to allow unnecessary, gratuitous pain and suffering, if one is aware of it, and if one is able to prevent it”. There are no exceptions. I can understand that some people believe in some God. But that people believe in a benevolent God, that is beyond comprehension for me.

 

[lmelahn]

If so why?

Yes. It is evil by definition: evil is the privation of some good that ought to be there, and suffering is, if you like, a subset of that.

(Suffering could be defined as the pain—physical, psychological, or spiritual—that one experiences when lacking some good that one ought to have. That experience is itself a disruption of the good experiences that one ought to have, so it is also a privation of a due good.)

However, it is not a moral evil; it is a physical evil.

For that reason, suffering is often tolerable, if through it one can obtain a greater good. However, in those cases, what is desired is that greater good, never the suffering in and of itself.

For example, in order to keep an important secret, a soldier might endure even torture. The torture is, of course, an evil (both moral—on the part of the perpetrator—and physical—on the part of the victim), but the soldier might be willing to endure it because the good of keeping the secret is so much more important.

Or a doctor might do a procedure that produces physical (or psychological) pain in one of his patients, knowing that the procedure will bring about healing (e.g., surgery).

In a similar way, in the Christian life, many sufferings can be redemptive or reparative; again, what is sought is the good that is brought about, never the suffering in and of itself.

 

[lmelahn]

Is Purgatory evil, or is it good?

The suffering in purgatory is an evil, certainly. That is why we have a duty to pray for the souls there. But the end result is so good that it is worth enduring.

 

[lmelahn]

First of all… a condition (any condition) is not “evil”. “Evil” or “wicked” are moral terms and they describe the actions of those agents who knowingly inflict or allow unnecessary suffering on others.

Question: “what is unnecessary suffering”?
Answer: “A suffering which is not balanced by some desirable good, which cannot be achieved without this suffering”.
Question: “Example, please”.
Answer: “Certainly. If a medical treatment causes temporary suffering or discomfort, but that suffering will lead to a cure and it cannot be avoided, then the suffering is necessary.”
Question: “This seems to depend on the level of technology”.
Answer: “Yes, indeed. In the middle ages there was no anesthesiology, so the patients were offered a bullet to bite upon while the “barber” used a hacksaw to amputate an arm or a leg. Today such a procedure would be barbaric and unnecessary.”
Question: “So what is your conclusion?”
Answer: “It should be obvious. One can examine the problem in the light of two starting points. One is that there is a loving and caring God, while the other one is that no such God exists”.
Question: “I see. What is your conclusion if there is no such loving and caring God?”
Answer: "Then as long as the agents act according to the best available technology, and inflict absolutely minimal pain, suffering or discomfort on others, then the suffering in necessary and as such not “gratuitous”.
Question: “What about the starting point that there is an omnipotent and benevolent God”?
Answer: “If God can do anything and everything that is not a logical impossibility, then all the sufferings could be eliminated.”
Question: “Hold it right there! How do you know that the existing sufferings are NOT necessary to achieve some greater good?”
Answer: “Obvious. No matter what kind of suffering you present, omnipotence can overcome it. After all omnipotence is able to do anything and everything, except logical impossibilities.”
Question: “That takes care of the so-called natural evils. What about the pain and suffering which is inflicted by psychopaths and sociopaths? Their actions cannot be eliminated without restricting or eliminating their freedom to inflict such sufferings.”
Answer: “Why should that be a problem? We, using our limited resources will place these wicked (or evil) people into jails and prisons and take away their freedom to inflict pain and suffering on others. There is nothing wrong with this procedure. Their freedom leads to our suffering, so we restrict or take away their freedom to protect our well-being. Is there something wrong with that?”

If you wish to criticize this line of reasoning, please go ahead.

God can certainly eliminate all suffering if He wishes to, however He would have to restore the human race to its condition before the Fall. All of the sufferings that we encounter nowadays stem in one way or another from the disordered condition that was caused by that Fall (either as the direct effect of concrete sinful actions, or because the original harmony that mankind was supposed to have with nature has been ruptured).

Right now, in the régime of fallen humanity that we find ourselves in, there are certain evils (moral evils, which are deadly) that can only be eradicated with what might be called “moral surgery.” For example—although it is not popular to say so nowadays—the purpose of punishment for crime is not principally to remove the criminal from circulation (although that is important too); it is to help him repent. (Our criminal justice system is woefully lacking in this area.)

So why does God not restore creation to the way it was before the Fall? Because He has found an even better solution that was occasioned by the Fall: namely, the Redemption effected by Jesus Christ. In God’s judgment, the sufferings that we endure now, as we await the fullness of union with Him, are well worth enduring for the sake of that union—similar to the way a doctor would consider the pain caused by surgery is well worth the benefit that it brings about.

We cannot really accuse Him of being cruel, because He Himself endured those sufferings—actually, even worse ones—for our sake.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I always thought that final “good” is to get to heaven. . . The funny thing is that God is supposed to “love” us, more than we can ever know. I would be happy if God only loved us as a humanly good person with god-like powers would. . . The definition of benevolence is: “not to allow unnecessary, gratuitous pain and suffering, if one is aware of it, and if one is able to prevent it”. There are no exceptions. I can understand that some people believe in some God. But that people believe in a benevolent God, that is beyond comprehension for me.

It may be difficult to comprehend, but here’s my :twocents::

God is Love, all compassionate and merciful.
To be in heaven is to participate in His glory.

He has created creatures who can think, feel and love.
If one can break free of the day’s preoccupations and contemplate the greatness of this reality - Wow!
There should be nothing, yet here it all is!
All of it; its physical dimensions actually eclipsed by the depth and magnitude of all these billions of uniquely individual, irreplaceable lives.
But, I digress.

We are meant to grow in love.
To have this capacity necessitates possibility of its opposite.
When people stray from the Way, we have ignorance and selfishness in its many forms:
hate, cowardice, apathy and ultimately the hurt, the badness that is at the root of anything we call suffering.
We will all suffer and die in this life as a result of our original choice, which is pretty much repeated by most of us on a daily basis.

We have been set free, redeemed through His act of sacrifice that demonstrates God’s love and commitment to our salvation.

It seems so simple; I don’t understand how people don’t believe in a God who is Love.

I figure they are aiming too low, or are unaware of what is possible.
My guess is that they have not experienced much suffering; the arguments tend to be generalized about earthquakes, tsunamis, ebola etc.
Most people who really, really hurt, seek and find God.
People who avoid pain end up avoiding life and ultimately God from what I have observed.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

God can certainly eliminate all suffering if He wishes to, however He would have to restore the human race to its condition before the Fall.

I would see nothing wrong with that method, but there are other excellent solutions as well. Just one for you to consider. Physical pain usually indicates that something is “wrong”. Instead of pain a much better solution would be instant regeneration of the tissue in question. Or instead of having animals with a pain center, he could have created intelligent plants, which feel no pain.

So why does God not restore creation to the way it was before the Fall? Because He has found an even better solution that was occasioned by the Fall: namely, the Redemption effected by Jesus Christ. In God’s judgment, the sufferings that we endure now, as we await the fullness of union with Him, are well worth enduring for the sake of that union—similar to the way a doctor would consider the pain caused by surgery is well worth the benefit that it brings about.

Better for whom? Not for those who end up in heaven. And definitely not for those who end up in hell to be tortured forever. And the doctor analogy is problematic, too. If the doctor only causes pain, which is necessary for the healing, then everything is OK. But the amount of pain, which is necessary, is contingent upon the available technology. With God’s power no pain is necessary, a doctor with God-like power could perform any healing without any pain.

We cannot really accuse Him of being cruel, because He Himself endured those sufferings—actually, even worse ones—for our sake.

Whatever he suffered it was chosen by him. We do not choose the suffering, and his alleged pain does not lessen our pain. Besides, all that alleged pain and suffering was unnecessary. God could have chosen to pardon all our transgressions without the self-sacrifice. Who could have stopped him?

The basic conundrum is still the same: “benevolence is not compatible with any kind of unnecessary (gratuitous) pain and suffering”.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

God is Love, all compassionate and merciful.

I am very sad to say, but you already lost me. Allowing any unnecessary pain and suffering is incompatible with “love”.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . “benevolence is not compatible with any kind of unnecessary (gratuitous) pain and suffering”.

Save for us and demons (for whom no one seems to feel sorry apparently, for good reason I would add) there is absolutely no evidence that this universe contains anything else who suffers.
Quite magnificently, countless planets, stars and galaxies explode and smash into each other, matter is drawn into black holes; all this massive stuff going on and all without a tear.

Given that we are here, would you consider it better if there were someone sharing this with us, or is it preferrable to be alone in this?
If there is someone always with us, who has succeeded in allowing all the choice, after these temporary trials, to be eternally happy, would you call that person benevolent?

I am very sad to say, but you already lost me.

I know. You may be looking for paradise in this world. It is not. In a sense, paradise must be won.

 

[tonyrey]

“even more evil” and “interferes” beg the question, implying that divine intervention is unnecessary and natural laws are sufficient to minimise evil. On what ground?

Please explain why evil is not inevitable - or is excessive.

From one extreme to the other! There is abundant evidence that miracles have occurred but the sceptic constantly appeals to ignorance by assuming all inexplicable cures and cases of survival have unknown physical causes.

Again: “what do you call a miracle”? Let me give you an example: All of a sudden all the TVs and radios turn themselves on (even the unplugged ones) and broadcast the following message: "On this day (date follows) at that time (time follows) the stars will be rearranged and display the first chapter of Genesis in every modern and dead language. Now that would be an unquestionable miracle.

That is an example of an extraordinary event which serves no useful purpose. A more reasonable example is a recovery from illness for which there is no scientific explanation.

According to what criterion?

I suggest you refrain from saying that one Holocaust was not enough, we need a new one… Saying is would earn you cheers in a neo-Nazi camp, but it would have very dire consequences everywhere else.

The question remains unanswered. At what stage does man’s inhumanity become a reason for not giving us free will?

That would be true if God created lapdogs incapable of scepticism! The final good is our freedom to think for ourselves - without which we are incapable of being authentic persons.

I always thought that final “good” is to get to heaven.

Being in heaven is the enjoyment of freedom without which love and joy are impossible.

God isn’t a slot machine!

You mean God is not a vending machine. A vending machine would give you the merchandise for your money. God is much more like a slot-machine. He takes your money, and does not give you anything for it - most of the time. He picks and chooses whom to help and whom not to help. The funny thing is that God is supposed to “love” us, more than we can ever know. I would be happy if God only loved us as a humanly good person with god-like powers would.

That is an idiosyncratic notion of God based on self-refuting scepticism. The slot-machine of nature is supposed to produce human goodness from mindless molecules by performing a miracle surpassed only by the metaphysical conjuring trick of deriving everything from nothing!

There is no evidence that miracles are rare events.

Actually, there is no evidence that “miracles” happen at all.

There is certainly no evidence that every event has a scientific explanation. Can science explain itself or the scientist? Circular reasoning is self-destructive because it has no rational foundation.

But you are deviating from the topic again. The definition of benevolence is: “not to allohw unnecessary, gratuitous pain and suffering, if one is aware of it, and if one is able to prevent it”. There are no exceptions.

A far more positive definition of benevolence is sharing the opportunity to develop the capacity for love, appreciate beauty and create happiness by making sacrifices and accepting the inevitable hardships of a worthwhile existence:

It is indisputable that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low, has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied; and a highly endowed being will always feel that any happiness which he can look for, as the world is constituted, is imperfect. But he can learn to bear its imperfections, if they are at all bearable; and they will not make him envy the being who is indeed unconscious of the imperfections, but only because he feels not at all the good which those imperfections qualify.

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.

John Stuart Mill, *Utilitarianism *

John Keats developed this view with his idea that this world is “a vale of soul-making”.

I can understand that some people believe in some God. But that people believe in a benevolent God, that is beyond comprehension for me.

How people can believe in a malevolent or impotent God is beyond the comprehension of anyone who recognises the immense value of life in this world in spite of its hardships. It is absurd to expect to get something for nothing. Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage. That may not be a logical truth but reality surpasses human logic.

 

[Richca]

I am very sad to say, but you already lost me. Allowing any unnecessary pain and suffering is incompatible with “love”.

The Holy Scripture says “Whoever spares the rod hates the child, but whoever loves will apply discipline.” (Proverbs 13:24). God made us free creatures with the consequence of either doing good or doing evil and St John says "If we say, “We are without sin,” we deceive ourselves,* and the truth is not in us.(1 John 1:8). Human suffering and pain is a form of God applying the rod (punishment, discipline) to us because He loves us as the scripture says “but whoever loves will apply discipline.” A disobedient child who is spared the rod is one who is hated and will turn out to be as a wild animal or as weeds in a garden that are plucked up and discarded as useless.

Also, christians do not look upon suffering, trials, and crosses as their enemy but as their good actually, at least that is how we should consider it. The cross is a mark of christian discipleship as Jesus said “whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” (Matt. 16:24). The paradox of the cross is the difference between the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God, " my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways" (Isaiah 55:8). God’s wisdom which was revealed in Jesus Christ and his cross is “a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Cor. 1: 23-24). "But may I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which* the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.(Galatians 6:14).
For this momentary light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison (2 Cor. 4:17).

St Louis de Montfort says that if we knew the value of the cross, “we would, like St Peter of Alcantara pray unceasingly for this select portion of paradise. We would say like St Teresa of Avila: " either to suffer or to die.” Or like St Mary Magdelene de Pazzi: “not to die, but to suffer.” We would like St John of the Cross ask only for " the grace to suffer and to be despised for Thee."

 

[Robert_Sock]

I am very sad to say, but you already lost me. Allowing any unnecessary pain and suffering is incompatible with “love”.

What if God used suffering as a means of developing His LOVE in you? Would you pass on the opportunity to have to suffer a little in order to ignite that love?

 

[tonyrey]

s
…The basic conundrum is still the same: “benevolence is not compatible with any kind of unnecessary (gratuitous) pain and suffering”.

It is compatible if apparently unnecessary (gratuitous) pain and suffering are essential for personal development and fulfilment. Only hedonists believe comfort and pleasure are more important than anything else and to be avoided at all costs even if it means sacrificing our freedom and power to shape our own destiny rather than be impotent cogs in an immense machine…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Save for us and demons (for whom no one seems to feel sorry apparently, for good reason I would add) there is absolutely no evidence that this universe contains anything else who suffers.

If the word “us” includes the animals, then I agree. We have no evidence for other beings which have a nervous system. I don’t know why is this important.

Given that we are here, would you consider it better if there were someone sharing this with us, or is it preferrable to be alone in this?

I would prefer to suffer alone. Someone else’s suffering is not comforting, and it does not lessen the suffering I might experience. And I have no “Schadenfreude”.

If there is someone always with us, who has succeeded in allowing all the choice, after these temporary trials, to be eternally happy, would you call that person benevolent?

I think you might be speaking about God. My answer: “not benevolent enough”, even if that eternal happiness would be substantiated… but it is just a pipe-dream. Unfortunately. If the suffering here and now would be a logical prerequisite to that “eternal happiness”, then it MIGHT be acceptable. But there is no logical connection between them, so there is no reason not to intervene and allow the needless suffering to go on.

I know. You may be looking for paradise in this world. It is not. In a sense, paradise must be won.

Not necessarily “paradise”, though it might be nice. Simply getting rid of all the unnecessary pain and suffering would be very welcome. The emphasis is on unnecessary. And why should paradise be “won”? Especially considering that one cannot “earn” admittance to heaven.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Please explain why evil is not inevitable - or is excessive.

I am not talking about “evil”, I am talking about “unnecessary pain and suffering”. Here is a simple solution. Instead of creating animals with pain receptors, God could have created intelligent plants, which cannot feel pain. If they lose a branch due to a storm, they will grow new ones.

That is an example of an extraordinary event which serves no useful purpose. A more reasonable example is a recovery from illness for which there is no scientific explanation.

Very well, if that is your preference. So every TV set and radio would turn itself on and proclaim that tomorrow (date provided) ALL the amputees will have their lost limbs regrown. I prefer the astronomical miracle, since we know the physics and mathematics of the celestial bodies, we know them much more than the chemistry and biology of our bodies. As such we can make a reasonable assessment if that “miracle” is really something that cannot happen in nature without a supernatural intervention. Even the regrowth of the lost limbs might be a natural phenomenon. The planaria is a simple organism with almost unlimited ability to regrow lost parts of its body.

The stars and planets are a different “ball-game”. We know that faster than light travel is impossible in the macro world. As such the visible rearrangement of the stars, much less creating patterns in human languages cannot be explained away, they would point to some supernatural entity.