A better argument from evil which classical theodicy doesn't address.

[RaiseTheDead]

Why must this creator be benevolent? Throughout the Bible we see again and again acts of Yahweh NOT being very benevolent. The text says that he is benevolent and loving, but words and actions are two different things. Indeed, one of his first acts is the throwing out of Adam and Eve into the world to suffer:

You are entirely avoiding the concepts of justice and righteousness by creating a false dichotomy of benevolent / not benevolent. There are simply other things to take into consideration!

he kept Adam and Eve ignorant.

You have imposed this idea on the text to arrive at falsehood.

We also see that Yahweh allows suffering on the part of unbelievers, mainly in Hell, even if the unbeliever has led a good, sin-free life he or she will still not enter Heaven.

Ditto.

As you can see, this probably isn't the Christian defence that you were expecting, but that is because I am not a Christian. If this is not what you wanted please feel free to disregard.
We suffer because we sin. At least, that is how I interpreted it.

Actually the first part IS an aspect of Christianity, and not something that needs to be defended. We are told clearly that suffering has causes other than sin.

 

[Rajni]

Are you assuming the Creator is all-powerful?

Suppose there exists one (or more) creator(s) who are not all powerful. It/They create a universe and people within act with their own free will. It's the people who are responsible for inflicting suffering on each other, instead of the all-powerful creator.

There's another theory -- and it's just a theory -- that is based on the concept of reincarnation, but without the usual punitive flavor that accompanies that concept, and it's that people actually plan out their lives before birth. The challenges that come up in their lives are, for the most part, planned out by them for the purpose of personal growth and self-mastery.

Of course, that raises the question of why anyone would leave the comforts of heaven-with-God to come down here -- often repeatedly -- to put up with the miseries of this world.

The answer is likely the same as why anyone would leave the comfort of a cushy couch in a climate-controlled house to go climb Mount Everest, or choose to run a cross-country marathon when a nice, leisurely stroll in the park would suffice. People generally love a challenge and the growth they get from it.

There's one book I know of that deals with this concept, titled "Courageous Souls: Do We Plan Our Life Challenges Before Birth?" (currently titled "Your Soul's Plan: Discovering the Real Meaning of the Life You Planned Before You Were Born") by Robert Schwartz. It's a fascinating read.

Again, just a theory -- it may not be gospel truth, but for me it's probably the least depressing of all the theories I've come across so far.

-

 

[Star of the Dawn]

You are entirely avoiding the concepts of justice and righteousness by creating a false dichotomy of benevolent / not benevolent. There are simply other things to take into consideration!

My English evidently sucks, can you rephrase this please?

You have imposed this idea on the text to arrive at falsehood.

What were they if not ignorant? Their eyes were opened, this suggests they became knowing, and the opposite of knowing is not knowing - being ignorant of.

We are told clearly that suffering has causes other than sin.

What are your reasons?

 

[RaiseTheDead]

My English evidently sucks, can you rephrase this please?

And you're in England?

What were they if not ignorant? Their eyes were opened, this suggests they became knowing, and the opposite of knowing is not knowing - being ignorant of.

Except their eyes were NOT opened. That was the lie they were told, which is part of what "beguiled" Eve.

What are your reasons?

My reasons for suffering? That would take this conversation in a decidedly different direction. The bible tells us many, some of which were already mentioned in this thread

 

[Star of the Dawn]

Except their eyes were NOT opened. That was the lie they were told, which is part of what "beguiled" Eve.

So he beguiled Eve by giving humans the free will to live independently of God, use their own reason and logic and go their own way? That is what I call knowledge, learning your origins, how to become independent etc. What was so bad about that?

The bible tells us many, some of which were already mentioned in this thread

I'll go back and read it all again...

 

[RaiseTheDead]

So he beguiled Eve by giving humans the free will to live independently of God

He had no free will to live, but was already imprisoned himself. Independence of God is the definition of sin

ETA: above type should've read he had no free will to GIVE, but I'll leave it as possible evidence of a Freudian slip

 

[Star of the Dawn]

Independence of God is the definition of sin.

Why is it a sin? Children become independent of parents and many go on to become good parents themselves if they wish to have children.

 

[AskTheFamily]

That was a cool Theodicy, Chaela!

One argument I have against diseases is the following:

If diseases are for a greater in good for humanity, we should not want to cure them.
We should want to cure them.
Therefore diseases are not for a greater good for humanity

 

[JJWhite]

That was a cool Theodicy, Chaela!

One argument I have against diseases is the following:

If diseases are for a greater in good for humanity, we should not want to cure them.
We should want to cure them.
Therefore diseases are not for a greater good for humanity

Maybe the good is partly in that they make us actively search for cures.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Maybe the good is partly in that they make us actively search for cures.

Good answers, but ALL this time, no cures, and finally now we begin to cure these things! What about all the humans in the past? Were they all sacrifices so that in the future we cure diseases?

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Why is it a sin? Children become independent of parents and many go on to become good parents themselves if they wish to have children.

That is not a parallel; you are failing to distinguish between flesh and spirit

 

[RaiseTheDead]

.

 

[JJWhite]

Good answers, but ALL this time, no cures, and finally now we begin to cure these things! What about all the humans in the past? Were they all sacrifices so that in the future we cure diseases?

They were probably trying to do things towards finding cures too...

Also, we see illness as atonement... maybe someone is sick in this world, and then all his mistakes are atoned for and he goes to Heaven straight away without any other need for purification... also, the person learns lessons on how to be patient and resilient... the person gains a higher station in Heaven due to that endurance... there's lots of positive stuff that probably came out of people being sick

 

[AskTheFamily]

Also, we see illness as atonement... maybe someone is sick in this world, and then all his mistakes are atoned for and he goes to Heaven straight away without any other need for purification... also, the person learns lessons on how to be patient and resilient... the person gains a higher station in Heaven due to that endurance... there's lots of positive stuff that probably came out of people being sick

If there is positive stuff, then why should we want to cure the diseases?

 

[JJWhite]

If there is positive stuff, then why should we want to cure the diseases?

Because God wants us to try our best to remove all types of suffering, whether it's disease or poverty or stress, but during the process, as we learn.. he makes the suffering have other benefits as well... doing our best to remove the suffering can be even more positive

 

[AskTheFamily]

Because God wants us to try our best to remove all types of suffering, whether it's disease or poverty or stress, but during the process, as we learn.. he makes the suffering have other benefits as well... doing our best to remove the suffering can be even more positive

Why does God want you to do your best to remove suffering, if a greater good comes out of it?

 

[JJWhite]

It's not like there's only one good that can come out of it... the good of removing (which is a good that comes out of it) can be a superior good to other good things that come out of it.

Lots of times people like to look at issues as either good or bad... sometimes it really isn't an issue of good verses bad, but good vs better or bad vs worse...

 

[AskTheFamily]

It's not like there's only one good that can come out of it... the good of removing (which is a good that comes out of it) can be a superior good to other good things that come out of it.

Lots of times people like to look at issues as either good or bad... sometimes it really isn't an issue of good verses bad, but good vs better or bad vs worse...

If there is a greater good in absence of it, then it follows suffering doesn't produce a greater good. There is more good in it's absence. And if we want all suffering to end, why shouldn't God.

I remember Eudonomist said if he had a magic wand in his hand, he would make all the problems in the world go away. God has that magic wand, yet doesn't? We should want to get rid of suffering but God shouldn't? Seems contradictory.

 

[AskTheFamily]

If suffering was for the greater good, we should not want to get rid of suffering.
We should want to get rid of suffering.
Therefore suffering is not for the greater good.

 

[JJWhite]

Over-simplification...