Reddit mentions of Evil and the God of Love

It sounds like a summary for this book.

> The purpose of any suffering is ultimately to bring us closer into union with him

I actually somewhat like your idea here but you still might want to consider what the purpose of animal suffering is as well as the purpose of suffering newborns.


This paper might interest you.: http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/hick.pdf

I think it is along a slightly different track than your thoughts but still similar.

Edit:if you are super interested here is his book on it. http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0230252796 Again not saying it has all the answers.

John Hick: He's basically reusing the argument made by Irenaeus in the 2nd century but doing so in contrast to Augustine's Free Will/The Fall Theodicy. A very simple summary is; instead of reading the Fall as necessarily literal, where humanity was perfect in its distant past, Hick looks to the eschatological perfection (the end times/ultimate) of humanity once we are reunited with God. We are not deviants trying to reattain our perfection, but children maturing into it, of which suffering is a necessary part. See the IEP for a larger summary or read his book, Evil and the God of Love

David Griffin: I'm not familiar with his specific arguments but the Process Theodicy works in this way: Individual moral agents' free will is the utmost power thus while God is a t all times trying to influence the individual to making the right actions, He cannot ever overrule someone's free will. As such, the suffering that occurs in the world is the result of absolute free will and God's omnipotence is compromised to account for what might be excessive suffering. Read here for more on Process theology and look at God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy for DRG's argument specifically.

Evil and the God of Love

http://www.amazon.com/Evil-God-Love-John-Hick/dp/0230252796

I don't buy what he's selling, in many ways, but it's a good place to start.

You're pretty much stating the premise behind "The Problem of Evil:"

> If God is perfectly good, then He must want to prevent evil.

> If God is all-powerful, then He can prevent evil.

> Evil exists.

> Therefore, God is either not perfectly good or God is not all-powerful, or both.


There are plenty of philosophical arguments out there if you really want to look into it. There are immensely more intelligent individuals who have argued against The Problem of Evil. My argument against it would pail in comparison to theirs.

One counter argument is this:

> Evil exists because of humans free will

> If God was to stop evil from occurring this would reveal God

>* If God is revealed this would remove elements of humans free will and the need for faith. Both of which are elements needed for Humans to reach heaven/enlightenment.

All evil is the reaction based on the actions of humans with free will. To prevent evil from occurring god would have to remove humans free will. By doing so we would become mere puppets/slaves. Destroying the point of human existence.

I studied this a long time ago, so this is a very poor example. You should look into "Irenaean Theodicy" and "Evil and the God of Love"