Why would God include carnivory, parasitism, and disease in creation?

[Sair]

It wrong to explain it scientifically- the language of God is myth. In the “God myth” we are engaged with, God is the source of all good, and the Devil/original sin, human folly or willfulness, etc. is the source of all evil. These terms “good” and “evil” do not reflect inherent qualities, but human experience. So, in our God-narrative, God is all good. He is also held to be all-powerful. This is a logical inconsistency in the myth, we freely admit. But this, logical consitency is only at the exoteric level- on a deeper level the universe is only temporal, and therefore, properly speaking, non-existent- and thus evil does not ‘really’ exist.

I think the Jewish people who experienced Nazi Germany and the heretics who experienced the Inquisition would probably disagree about the ‘real’ existence of evil. I think that any creature being eaten by another, or being slowly devoured from within by a parasite, is really, really suffering pain and torment, regardless of how temporary it may be. If temporality is the equivalent of nonexistence, why bother learning or doing anything at all? There seems little utility or sense in considering the real world to be, in fact, not real. It seems like yet another way to talk ourselves into feeling a transcendence we don’t actually possess.

This strikes me as quite an unusual attempt, amongst Christians, to throw a curtain of words around what is, ultimately, a pretty simple philosophical idea - just one that many people find very hard to accept and to reconcile with their desire/need to believe in a personal god. Most Christians I’ve encountered online and in person certainly do not freely acknowledge any logical inconsistency in the myth of the God of Classical Theism.

 

[Qoeleth]

I think the Jewish people who experienced Nazi Germany and the heretics who experienced the Inquisition would probably disagree about the ‘real’ existence of evil. I think that any creature being eaten by another, or being slowly devoured from within by a parasite, is really, really suffering pain and torment, regardless of how temporary it may be. If temporality is the equivalent of nonexistence, why bother learning or doing anything at all? There seems little utility or sense in considering the real world to be, in fact, not real. It seems like yet another way to talk ourselves into feeling a transcendence we don’t actually possess.

This strikes me as quite an unusual attempt, amongst Christians, to throw a curtain of words around what is, ultimately, a pretty simple philosophical idea - just one that many people find very hard to accept and to reconcile with their desire/need to believe in a personal god. Most Christians I’ve encountered online and in person certainly do not freely acknowledge any logical inconsistency in the myth of the God of Classical Theism.

I think the whole idea of saying that evil (and the temporal universe) are really non-existent is essentially therapeutic- it is a kind of act of denial. If I was facing torture, I know I would like to believe “This world is nothing but a passing illusion, and soon my soul will be released into a Heaven of unimaginable delights.” Perhaps I might also like to think, “In 10,000 years, none of this will matter.”

The purpose of the human brain, and beliefs, is to make it easier for us to live. And if believing in God does that, why not? After all, the very purpose of beliefs is not to tell us reality. Reality is right before us, brutally obvious. Rather, beliefs exist to shield us from, to re-interpret, reality in a way that makes it tolerable.

Why, during our brief years on earth, should we even worry about ‘objective truth’? It means less than nothing to me. Rather, maybe we should forms beliefs that ‘work’ for us, and try to convince others on the basis that they might work for them too.

 

[Serious]

OK, I’ll attempt to give a better reply than most ‘apologists’. The Genesis account is an allegory. The main thing it tells us is that evil (the serpent) was present as a force in our universe since the beginning, and that the suffering of the world is as a consequence of original sin. Not literally of course- but insofar as existence itself is a sin (but not literally). “Life is a punishment for the crime of having been born.” Not literally true, but a proverb which expresses the condition and experience of the universe- that all existence is suffering- the first Noble Truth of Buddhism, and the message which we get from the Genesis myth. This awareness is the starting point of religion.

The God of the Genesis myth is a mythological, somewhat primitive idea of God- which, yes, does not match precisely the idea of God as presented by Jesus, who is forgiving. The image of God we get in Genesis should not be treated as any more ‘real’ than the myth of the serpent and the fruit itself.

Very well said! There is no problem of accepting Genesis as fully mythological. (A side question arises, which could be explored elsewhere: where does the mythology stop and historical, literal description start?) Yet it leaves us with eons of pain and suffering before humanity would have appeared on the scene - so the fall of humanity (BTW, is that mythological, too, since it was part of Genesis?) cannot be blamed for the sorry state of affairs before a few hundered thousand years ago.

Now it could easily be argued that all the biosphere with all its red-in-the-tooth-and-nail is simply a natural development - which is exactly what the atheists / materialists do. Is it true now that the believers will make that huge concession to the “arch-evil” (just kidding!) atheists? The next real question is: how can it be reconciled with God’s alleged “love”? After all “love” is an action by the one who loves someone and the action is directed toward the benefit of the loved one. It is also stated in the Bible that “not one feather can fall out of the sparrow’s tail without God knowing about it”.

That seems to indicate that God loves the animals, too. And yet, God allows all the suffering of the animals, by carnivorous predators, parasites and diseases. Again, I have seen it argued that the animals do not matter. That is also a very poor argument - why don’t they matter? They feel pain, too. Don’t tell me that gazelle does not feel pain when torn into pieces by a lion. All animals have an instinctive fear of fire. If burning would not be “unpleasant” for them, they would not flee from it. The world could have been created without parasites, without disease-causing bacteria, end even without predators. Of course then the question will come: what about the natural selection, which is the task of the predators, and keeping the population in check. Easy to answer: the grazers could have been created with a built-in “expiration date”, and a built in “population control”, and there would be no need for the predators.

The next objection might be: but these are just animals. There are no intelligent beings, who could believe in God and love and worship and glorify him? (Another side question could be: why would the almighty creator of all “want or need” to be glorified? Such an anthropomorphism. ) If God would have seen fit to create a conscious animal, he could have done it by selecting a grazer (and not an omnivore) as the starting point.

Now, if you discard the whole “Christian God” idea, and introduce the faceless Deist “deity”, then all these questions become moot. But this is a concession I simply do not see forthcoming. And if you do that, why not discard the whole concept of deity, and become atheist?

As a summary, I accept your answer as a good starting point. Now please continue and explain how can God’s alleged love be reconciled with the question of the OP?

 

[Qoeleth]

Very well said! There is no problem of accepting Genesis as fully mythological. (A side question arises, which could be explored elsewhere: where does the mythology stop and historical, literal description start?) Yet it leaves us with eons of pain and suffering before humanity would have appeared on the scene - so the fall of humanity (BTW, is that mythological, too, since it was part of Genesis?) cannot be blamed for the sorry state of affairs before a few hundered thousand years ago.

Now it could easily be argued that all the biosphere with all its red-in-the-tooth-and-nail is simply a natural development - which is exactly what the atheists / materialists do. Is it true now that the believers will make that huge concession to the “arch-evil” (just kidding!) atheists? The next real question is: how can it be reconciled with God’s alleged “love”? After all “love” is an action by the one who loves someone and the action is directed toward the benefit of the loved one. It is also stated in the Bible that “not one feather can fall out of the sparrow’s tail without God knowing about it”.

That seems to indicate that God loves the animals, too. And yet, God allows all the suffering of the animals, by carnivorous predators, parasites and diseases. Again, I have seen it argued that the animals do not matter. That is also a very poor argument - why don’t they matter? They feel pain, too. Don’t tell me that gazelle does not feel pain when torn into pieces by a lion. All animals have an instinctive fear of fire. If burning would not be “unpleasant” for them, they would not flee from it. The world could have been created without parasites, without disease-causing bacteria, end even without predators. Of course then the question will come: what about the natural selection, which is the task of the predators, and keeping the population in check. Easy to answer: the grazers could have been created with a built-in “expiration date”, and a built in “population control”, and there would be no need for the predators.

The next objection might be: but these are just animals. There are no intelligent beings, who could believe in God and love and worship and glorify him? (Another side question could be: why would the almighty creator of all “want or need” to be glorified? Such an anthropomorphism. ) If God would have seen fit to create a conscious animal, he could have done it by selecting a grazer (and not an omnivore) as the starting point.

Now, if you discard the whole “Christian God” idea, and introduce the faceless Deist “deity”, then all these questions become moot. But this is a concession I simply do not see forthcoming. And if you do that, why not discard the whole concept of deity, and become atheist?

As a summary, I accept your answer as a good starting point. Now please continue and explain how can God’s alleged love be reconciled with the question of the OP?

My response is that the to say the source of suffering is original sin is mythological- it is simply to say that suffering is intrinsically attached to existence. Because of the existence of evil.

Now, God is first and foremost the Redeemer, who frees us from the suffering of existence.
Yes, He is also a creator.

Not literally, of course. That would make nop sense. Rather, in the God-myth, the origin and the final destination are somehow the same.

To summarise what the Genesis myth and the God myth tell us-
Suffering is contrary to the will of God.
Existence is ‘fallen’- therefore existence is not how a loving intelligence would have planned it. Existence is therefore suffering.
Somehow, when we are redeemed from suffering, we will return to what we were (perhaps nothing, certainly no-thing) before we existed, before we fell.

 

[Serious]

My response is that the to say the source of suffering is original sin is mythological- it is simply to say that suffering is intrinsically attached to existence. Because of the existence of evil.

Now, God is first and foremost the Redeemer, who frees us from the suffering of existence.
Yes, He is also a creator.

Not literally, of course. That would make nop sense. Rather, in the God-myth, the origin and the final destination are somehow the same.

To summarise what the Genesis myth and the God myth tell us-
Suffering is contrary to the will of God.
Existence is ‘fallen’- therefore existence is not how a loving intelligence would have planned it. Existence is therefore suffering.
Somehow, when we are redeemed from suffering, we will return to what we were (perhaps nothing, certainly no-thing) before we existed, before we fell.

I guess this is not what the official catholic teaching is.

 

[tonyrey]

Your objection is anthropomorphic because it ignores or underestimates the value of other forms of life apart from “those who were properly worshipful”. What sort of bias do you have in mind?

You were the one who specified:

“If such an entity existed, we might expect some bias towards sentient beings, particularly those who were properly worshipful.”

In any case, the God of Classical Theism is generally portrayed as favouring humans, whom, supposedly, were made in this god’s image. Is this the god you believe in, or not?

All rational beings are made in God’s image - and are not cogently explained as fortuitous products of non-rational, purposeless processes.

To every individual. The question of scale doesn’t arise: it is a question of existing or not existing.

You appear to want to say that everything that exists is valuable in and of itself, merely by existing.

Non-existence offers nothing.

I have already agreed that individuals may value their own lives.

In other words they need not attach any value to their own lives or anyone else’s - which amounts to a denial of human rights.

But your argument implies that there has to be an overarching value system independent of any particular valuer. I would suggest that in order for something to be valuable, there has to be someone to whom it is of value.

Human rights exist regardless of whether they are recognised.

This argument is often levelled against atheists in the form of saying that if there is no god, those things and beings valuable to no-one else are expendable in a universe without a god to value them.

Things and persons are valuable regardless of what one believes.

But according to your argument here, that doesn’t follow, since anything that exists is valuable just because it is.

The issue here is not whether but why things and persons are valuable.

Empathy has certain minimum requirements, you know - for someone to empathise with me in any way, they would at the very least have to be aware of my existence. Hypotheticals don’t really count.

So if you’re not aware of a person’s existence that person has no rights?

Whether it values its life is irrelevant. The mere fact that it exists, develops and experiences pleasure and fulfilment is a sign of its value.

A sign of its value or a basis for its value? I would suggest the latter.

It is both - and it is not merely a matter of opinion!

Where do you obtain your power to choose?

I don’t know. Quantum mechanics? In any case, that’s irrelevant to the present discussion.

On the contrary. The power to choose requires explanation when determining a being’s value. An animal is not generally considered to have the same value as a person because it is not generally considered to have the same power to make a rational choice as a person.

 

[tonyrey]

This strikes me as quite an unusual attempt, amongst Christians, to throw a curtain of words around what is, ultimately, a pretty simple philosophical idea - just one that many people find very hard to accept and to reconcile with their desire/need to believe in a personal god.

An argumentum ad hominem. One can equally well say - with some justification - that people find very hard to accept and to reconcile with** their desire/need to do what they like **the belief in a personal god.

Most Christians I’ve encountered online and in person certainly do not freely acknowledge any logical inconsistency in the myth of the God of Classical Theism.

That is because there is no logical inconsistency…

 

[Qoeleth]

I guess this is not what the official catholic teaching is.

Actually, it is pretty much what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says!! That the language of religion is metaphoric and mythological, pointing to inexpressible truth- that the origins of evil are a mystery, but coincide with the very beginning of existence, and are contrary to God’s will- that our Creator is mysteriously the same as our Redeemer.

 

[Gaber]

No they did not. Viruses, predatory behavior, and parasites were here long before man existed, hundreds of millions of years in fact. The answer is that God does not view animal death in such ways as evil, any more than do I think of myself as a brute for enjoying the salmon I’ve just finished grilling. Much has been made of this issue, but it simply can be said in response that God allowed life to evolve as it has because it WORKS. The funny thing is that people have an apparent idea that they could do it better if they were God, to which I would say “Sure you could.” The system works wonderfully as it is, and worked to get us here, God’s pinnacle of creation. But as with physics, you can’t just change one small thing without throwing the whe system into chaos. Butterfly effect: change one thing about the works and a million unintended changes occur, maybe making biological life itself impossible.

This is a good answer, and starts to go in the right direction. The question can only be asked because of accepting a certain kind of view of what God is and what good is. As long as we devide the world into God, creation, and the devil, we will have evil. Without those divisions, there is simply reality, and that doesn’t exclude God. But it does force a different perspective on who (maybe not) or what (more likely) God is, and why we think something is good or not and relative to what. Good vs evil is the ultimate relitavism and we end up almost with a zoroastrian religion except satan isn’t in our religion a God, even though satan, misunderstood, has a place.

 

[Blacksword]

Back on topic:

God did not design carnivory, parasitism, and disease any more than He designed lechery, nepotism or child abuse.

I’d ask how anyone would actually know that god didn’t design all these things, but that probably wouldn’t move the discussion forward much.

After all, the working of the complex system that is life on earth and its evolution is driven by the need to meet the challenges of staying alive and passing on one’s genetic information to the next generation, and predation, parasitism and disease (caused by viruses and bacteria trying to stay alive and pass on their genes) are all methods of meeting said challenges. So if anyone actually designed this system, they built these features in as well, because it wouldn’t run without them.

It’s quite clear that the mechanisms by which the natural world operates care not for the needs or preferences of sentient beings - that is why humans have generally felt the need to invent gods, so that they can feel like there’s someone powerful that cares for them in the face of the totally indifferent power of nature. The God of Classical Theism (usually the go-to guy when it comes to identifying the ‘intelligent designer’ ID theorists claim is discernible) is a personal god who undoubtedly cares for his creations. Yet he is supposed to have built a universe that operates according to laws that must cause sentient beings to suffer. Doesn’t sound quite kosher, so to speak. The claim that the designer could not have built the universe in any other way suggests that whoever the designer was, he/she/it is also subject to certain laws and limitations - not a match for the omnipotent God of Classical Theism who is claimed by various believers to have created the laws of physics and logic and so forth.

Not necessarily. Rather, the impossibility of creating a truly free universe without these features may instead be a limitation on the creation, not the Creator. We say that God is love, and love in its core essence must mean freedom. Compulsion or “forcing it” cannot co-exist with love. And the universe, biological life, evolution, our sentient minds themselves, all have this principle of freedom built within. But with this freedom comes certain necessary corollaries, and parasitism, disease, and predation may well be among them. I submit the proposition therefore that to say that the impossibility of creation of such a universe without these features is a limitation on God’s power is in the same category of meaninglessness as are the old familiar claims of logical absurdity such as “Can God make a square circle?” or “Can God make a boulder so heavy that He can’t lift it?”

 

[Blacksword]

Back on topic:

The simplest answer to the OP’s question of why god would include carnivory, parasitism and disease in creation is that a loving creator god doesn’t actually exist. The development of the concept of a personal god who takes an interest in human affairs meets needs other than the explanation of why certain features of the natural world exist. Most people are not willing to accept the logical extent of crediting their god with creation, and that is why the problem of evil has bedevilled philosophers for centuries, as generations of thinkers have tried to explain their way out of this bind.

As an aside here, it’s been years since my formal philosophy studies so I’m afraid I can’t, off the top of my head, provide any firm sources, but it’s my understanding actually that within the halls of academia, among formal philosophers, the Problem of Evil has been considered a dead issue for awhile now. I believe it has, at least in academic circles, been considered as definitively dealt with, such that a workable theodicy has been put forth explaining that evil can exist in principle without violating the foundational starting point of a universe created by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and all benevolent deity. At least on paper, I think this has been decided. I realize that dry philosophy on such a thing can pale when confronting horrors of death and suffering first-hand, but I think formal philosophy has largely moved on from this. Someone in academia who specializes in the area may correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[tonyrey]

As an aside here, it’s been years since my formal philosophy studies so I’m afraid I can’t, off the top of my head, provide any firm sources, but it’s my understanding actually that within the halls of academia, among formal philosophers, the Problem of Evil has been considered a dead issue for awhile now. I believe it has, at least in academic circles, been considered as definitively dealt with, such that a workable theodicy has been put forth explaining that evil can exist in principle without violating the foundational starting point of a universe created by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and all benevolent deity. At least on paper, I think this has been decided. I realize that dry philosophy on such a thing can pale when confronting horrors of death and suffering first-hand, but I think formal philosophy has largely moved on from this. Someone in academia who specializes in the area may correct me if I’m wrong.

You are correct because philosophers generally agree that some evil is inevitable. Where they part company is on the question of whether the amount of evil in the world is excessive but it is a formidable task to establish that hypothesis in the absence of convincing evidence that there is no life after death…

 

[johnnyjones]

OK, I’ll attempt to give a better reply than most ‘apologists’. The Genesis account is an allegory. The main thing it tells us is that evil (the serpent) was present as a force in our universe since the beginning, and that the suffering of the world is as a consequence of original sin. Not literally of course- but insofar as existence itself is a sin (but not literally). “Life is a punishment for the crime of having been born.” Not literally true, but a proverb which expresses the condition and experience of the universe- that all existence is suffering- the first Noble Truth of Buddhism, and the message which we get from the Genesis myth. This awareness is the starting point of religion.

The God of the Genesis myth is a mythological, somewhat primitive idea of God- which, yes, does not match precisely the idea of God as presented by Jesus, who is forgiving. The image of God we get in Genesis should not be treated as any more ‘real’ than the myth of the serpent and the fruit itself.

So when Jesus talks of the blood of Abel and Zacharias, Abel is fake? Or when the New Testament speaks of Adam, they are quouting from a fictional story?

 

[Blacksword]

So when Jesus talks of the blood of Abel and Zacharias, Abel is fake? Or when the New Testament speaks of Adam, they are quouting from a fictional story?

Sigh, please, no young Earth creationism…this thread is actually going somewhere, the first portions of Genesis need not be literal anthropological and geologic history to still be “true”…let’s not derail the theology and philosophy into a pointless and hopeless debate about scientific fact.

 

[johnnyjones]

Sigh, please, no young Earth creationism…this thread is actually going somewhere, the first portions of Genesis need not be literal anthropological and geologic history to still be “true”…let’s not derail the theology and philosophy into a pointless and hopeless debate about scientific fact.

What you mean is you can’t explain how real people evidenced by Jesus’ own words are floating around in a fictitional creation. If the people aren’t real from Genesis, the rest of the scriptures don’t make sense. Yes, they need to be true.

 

[Blacksword]

What you mean is you can’t explain how real people evidenced by Jesus’ own words are floating around in a fictitional creation. If the people aren’t real from Genesis, the rest of the scriptures don’t make sense. Yes, they need to be true.

No, they don’t, not all of them and not exactly as depicted in Genesis. If you must cling to that to make sense of your faith, fine for you. But I don’t, and neither do many many other Catholics. In any event, this is off-topic. Your answer to this theological issue is fundamentalist construction of Scripture to assert that man caused disease and so forth. This answer holds no water for any scientifically aware person though, and so leads no where. So a return to the philosophical issues raised by the OP would be best.

 

[Poseidon]

What you mean is you can’t explain how real people evidenced by Jesus’ own words are floating around in a fictitional creation. If the people aren’t real from Genesis, the rest of the scriptures don’t make sense. Yes, they need to be true.

Pope JPII wrote a letter endorsing the theory of evolution. The Catholic church doesn’t say that the account of Genesis is literal, and in fact holds that it is not (by endorsing evolution). Besides, all the scientific evidence points to the earth being 5 billion years old, and humanity appearing about 100-150 thousand years ago.

 

[Blacksword]

Pope JPII wrote a letter endorsing the theory of evolution. The Catholic church doesn’t say that the account of Genesis is literal, and in fact holds that it is not (by endorsing evolution). Besides, all the scientific evidence points to the earth being 5 billion years old, and humanity appearing about 100-150 thousand years ago.

Yes, now let’s please get back to the philosophy!! Sair, or others taking the contrary position please chime in if you have anything to add to further this discussion. I grow weary of every single interesting thread on the basic issue of the Problem of Evil or animal suffering or similar issues being hijacked into a morass of young earth creationism v. evolutionary theory and science in general. Especially when Tonyrey has made some good points and hopefully I’ve contributed at least something of worth for thought.

 

[johnnyjones]

Pope JPII wrote a letter endorsing the theory of evolution. The Catholic church doesn’t say that the account of Genesis is literal, and in fact holds that it is not (by endorsing evolution). Besides, all the scientific evidence points to the earth being 5 billion years old, and humanity appearing about 100-150 thousand years ago.

The church does not “endorse” evolution, it is simply permissible. As well it must be theistic.

catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

 

[Sair]

Not necessarily. Rather, the impossibility of creating a truly free universe without these features may instead be a limitation on the creation, not the Creator. We say that God is love, and love in its core essence must mean freedom. Compulsion or “forcing it” cannot co-exist with love. And the universe, biological life, evolution, our sentient minds themselves, all have this principle of freedom built within. But with this freedom comes certain necessary corollaries, and parasitism, disease, and predation may well be among them. I submit the proposition therefore that to say that the impossibility of creation of such a universe without these features is a limitation on God’s power is in the same category of meaninglessness as are the old familiar claims of logical absurdity such as “Can God make a square circle?” or “Can God make a boulder so heavy that He can’t lift it?”

To suggest that the possibilities of creation are limited, rather than the capacities of the creator, would seem to imply that the creator had only certain materials with which to work - but what materials? Did God create all else that exists, or did he work with pre-existing stuff? This ties in with the idea that if God is limited by laws of logic, then God did not create these laws, but was subject to them all along.

Love has just as much power to enslave as to liberate - anyone who forms a genuine relationship of affection and respect with another knows this, but it has to be said that if we are fortunate enough to have a caring social education by loving parents/guardians (which is certainly not guaranteed) we go into such relationships (assuming we are lucky enough to have more than one!) with an awareness that the rewards may well be greater than the sacrifices. Would the rewards of creating a universe of complete harmony - at least, from the perspective of sentient beings - outweigh those of creating a universe subject to complete freedom, when that freedom entails the freedom to abuse others? That’s something we’ll never know, because we certainly don’t have the former.

What is more, violence and assault - which, it can effectively be argued, predation and parasitism are - limit freedom more than they enable it - especially since, for wild animals, the perpetrators don’t have options. Some animals are so constituted that they cannot survive in any other way than by preying upon or parasitising other animals - this is apparently a product of the evolution which was supposedly designed by a benevolent designer, to bring about the extreme ‘good’ of human existence. Then, from a particularly human perspective, one person’s freedom to commit murder or rape, for example, impinges more deeply upon the freedom of their victim(s) than the inability to abuse another would impinge upon the potential murderer’s or rapist’s freedom - any bodily assault, be it a beating, a rape or a murder, inflicts scars upon the victims and the victims’ families and friends, that last a lifetime, whilst the perpetrator may be rehabilitated and get over the crime they have committed. The infliction of such abuses also has a strong tendency to brutalise the victims, unless they are unusually strong in themselves or offered support from others, who, themselves, must be unusually strong. Fair? Just? Hardly. The fiction of eternal life, with its heavenly rewards and hellish punishments, has to be brought in to square the ledger in such cases, in order to give God a free pass.

One of the strongest points in favour of the argument from evil, against the existence of a benevolent and powerful god, is that the degree of suffering imposed by those who are, supposedly, exercising free will, is far greater than the rewards brought about by such freedoms. People are free, according to most monotheistic worldviews, to make choices, and those choices include options that don’t impinge upon the rights or the bodily integrity of others. But they also include choices that irrevocably destroy the lives of others. Is the extreme suffering of one person a fair price to pay for the freedom of choice granted to another person? Are murder, butchery and gang rape a fair exchange for universal human freedom? Where is the supposedly benevolent and all-powerful God of Classical Theism when such abuses occur? Waiting in the wings to punish after the fact?