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

[RaiseTheDead]

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, with much to learn

 

[AskTheFamily]

Or, we have a limited perspective, which much to learn

I know, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. Would like to get a thorough theodicy that is flawless.

 

[KimberlyAA]

In my belief, since sin came into the world, humanity has been plagued by all kinds of problems. Multiple personality disorders or Dissociative Identity Disorder is like any illness and so are any other mental disorders. Of course they would go against soul development as the person has no conscious control in these cases. However, in the Bible, when studying God's character and Jesus' character, He constantly emphasises eternal life. People facing such disorders would have a much greater chance of entering God's kingdom than a regular person like you or me since they can't consciously do wrong in such a situation. Many of these disorders, however, have many environmental and emotional causes as well such as childhood trauma.

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.

In many cases these problems can be overcome by counseling and spiritual guidance and help. We can do far more than just "feeling sorry" for these people. Since sin came into the world, disease also followed. Jesus used the curing of sickness and disease to show His power. Healing from suffering and disease continues to be a powerful testimony to God's power. For example, http://www.cbn.com/media/player/index.aspx?s=/vod/RT26v3

 

[AskTheFamily]

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.

 

[DCJazz]

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.

This is a fallacy, imho, since you have no way of proving the suffering is unnecessary, or doesn't bring about a greater good. This is compounded by the fact that humans don't know everything, and can only see from inside the picture, rather than outside it as a whole.

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.

So I think you really need to work on your definitions, while you're at it.

 

[LoAmmi]

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.

Should the punishment not fit the crime, however?

Yes, I realize that in Christian theology usually all sin is the same so the question might not be worth asking. But I can't see what someone could have possibly done without being some sort of mass murderer to deserve something like a disease that causes constant pain.

The entire point of Job was that the good can suffer while the evil are fine. To say it is punishment is to fall right into the line of thinking three of Job's friends had which were rightly corrected.

 

[bling]

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.

Why don’t we look at Jesus answer to this same question in John 9:1-7?

It may look initially like a particular situation, but the answer could apply to all individuals Born with a defect.

What you do not hear Jesus saying is blaming the tragedy on any ones sin, Adam and Eve, satan, bad luck, God or evil in the world.

Everything that is happening in the world right now (disease, natural disasters, and tragedies of all kinds) are not the result of the bad that has happened, but is the result of the GOOD that can happen!

Now you have seen good come out of tragedies, so could good not come out of every tragedy?

That is not to say good always results in every tragedy, for it is an opportunity that God allows. The amount of tragedies in the world today would be more the result of good people not stepping up to the ones that are available, so God allows more in hopes of help us to finally step up.

It would be inconsistent with God’s nature to hurt innocent people (God can take the lives of innocent people that is not hurting them). God can only allow Satan to hurt innocent people to a limit God establishes to provide opportunities for Good people to develop and grow Godly type love. Look at Job. Job was a better person at the end then at the beginning as a result of going through the tragedy.

Look at Rms. 8:28 all thing (which would include tragedies) work together for the Good of good people (it is not the result of the actions of bad people or sin).

 

[BruceDLimber]

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 nonexistence—that 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 mind—that 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 elements—that 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

 

[bling]

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 nonexistence—that 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 mind—that 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 elements—that 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.

 

[AskTheFamily]

1. All life will end in peace and prosperity and the end result is for each life to be without suffering.
2. Honour and Value is a worthy goal of suffering for a period, given that life will end in peace and without suffering.
3. In order to create some suffering that would bring about honour and value, some suffering would not.
4. There is wisdom in enriching the sentient honour and value experience with different type of suffering in the system.
5. Honour and Value gained through the system of struggle and suffering, cannot be given without such a system.
6. Therefore over all system of suffering could have been created to enrich sentient life experience.
7. A benevolent Creator therefore seems compatible with the world we live in.

 

[BruceDLimber]

That is definitely one way to explain away evil. It sounds a lot like situation ethics.

It definitely isn't because we have both clear encouragements and clear prohibitions relating to various topics!

Nor do our scriptures "explain away" evil, but rather describe it as the relative absence of good attributes, as the quoted passage explains.

Peace,

Bruce