Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Or, we have a limited perspective, which much to learn
Specifically, it is thought that one way that some individuals respond to being severely traumatized as a young child is to wall off, in other words to dissociate, those memories. When that reaction becomes extreme, DID may be the result. As with other mental disorders, having a family member with DID may be a risk factor, in that it indicates a potential vulnerability to developing the disorder but does not translate into the condition being literally hereditary.
The premises are as follows:
If there was a benevolent Creator, there would not exist unnecessary suffering or suffering that would not bring about a greater good.
There exists suffering that is unnecessary and doesn't bring about a greater good.
Therefore a benevolent Creator does not exist.
As for benevolent, my stepfather was benevolent. But he would still discipline me when I did the wrong thing. Despite deserving my punishment, I would see it as unfair, unjust, and just plain mean since other kids got to do whatever they wanted.
Why dont we look at Jesus answer to this same question in John 9:1-7?Here is some premises that are possible to be true:
1. All humans will eventually be at peace and without suffering.
2. After gazillions of years of peace and no suffering, even suffering for a thousand years will seem trivial.
3. Opportunity of Higher character building is a worthy goal then of all suffering that is for a trivial period in relationship to endless period.
4. Diseases and mental disorders give opportunity for humanity to strive for cures, and gives higher goals available for humanity. (genetic research, etc)
5. Natural disasters give opportunity for humanity to help one another and also to their best to limit damage of natural disasters.
6. 4 & 5 are justified with perspective 1, 2, & 3.
7. Only designer has right to inflict pain for greater goal just as only designer has right to set up death.
8. Just as we can't murder each other, because designed system kills a person, same then with not wanting to alleviate suffering, because system is designed to afflict suffering.
9. All suffering caused by free-will is part of character choosing and gives opportunity for heroic struggle against evil.
10. Free-will was worthy goal given perspective 1, 2, and 3.
11. Any higher character building at any given time by any person is worth any suffering given perspective 1, 2, and 3.
12. Patience in face of tragedy and suffering is worthy virtue, given perspective 1, 2, and 3.
Problem of Suffering and Evil seems solved.
That is definitely one way to explain away evil. It sounds a lot like situation ethics.I would humbly suggest the Baha'i scriptures paint a far more positive view both of God's Love and Beneficence and of the nature of good and evil, viz.:
Chapter 74.
THE NONEXISTENCE OF EVIL
The true explanation of this subject is very difficult. Know that beings are of two kinds: material and spiritual, those perceptible to the senses and those intellectual.
Things which are sensible are those which are perceived by the five exterior senses; thus those outward existences which the eyes see are called sensible. Intellectual things are those which have no outward existence but are conceptions of the mind. For example, mind itself is an intellectual thing which has no outward existence. All man's characteristics and qualities form an intellectual existence and are not sensible.
Briefly, the intellectual realities, such as all the qualities and admirable perfections of man, are purely good, and exist. Evil is simply their nonexistence. So ignorance is the want of knowledge; error is the want of guidance; forgetfulness is the want of memory; stupidity is the want of good sense. All these things have no real existence.
In the same way, the sensible realities are absolutely good, and evil is due to their nonexistencethat is to say, blindness is the want of sight, deafness is the want of hearing, poverty is the want of wealth, illness is the want of health, death is the want of life, and weakness is the want of strength.
Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mindthat is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves. But as the elements of their poison do not agree with our elementsthat is to say, as there is antagonism between these different elements, therefore, this antagonism is evil; but in reality as regards themselves they are good.
The epitome of this discourse is that it is possible that one thing in relation to another may be evil, and at the same time within the limits of its proper being it may not be evil. Then it is proved that there is no evil in existence; all that God created He created good. This evil is nothingness; so death is the absence of life. When man no longer receives life, he dies. Darkness is the absence of light: when there is no light, there is darkness. Light is an existing thing, but darkness is nonexistent. Wealth is an existing thing, but poverty is nonexisting.
Then it is evident that all evils return to nonexistence. Good exists; evil is nonexistent.
Some Answered Questions, pp. 282-284
Peace,
Bruce
That is definitely one way to explain away evil. It sounds a lot like situation ethics.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?