The Problem of Pain discussion

Could you define theodicy? This is one of those words that only theologians use; surely, if it's relevant, it can be explained otherwise.

It has been a long time since I read "The Problem of Pain". As I recall, Lewis' description of the problem is the same as yours. If God is all-loving and all-powerful, then why do good people suffer? One of Lewis' main points that really stuck with me was his assertion that God values our freedom of choice more than our lives, and he will not take our freedom in order to spare us pain. This is not an easy read, but it is short and well worth the effort. I suggest you move it from your "to read" stack to your "read" stack when you have the opportunity.

Also, suffering informs most compassion; without it, compassion is just vague guesswork at what we think the victim might be feeling.

Theodicy:the defense of the goodness and character of God in a world filled with sin, suffering, and death

This book was immensely helpful to me in the middle of an extended period of very difficult and painful circumstances, and has been somewhat of an anchor for me ever since. Well worth the read, but give yourself time to go slowly and digest it.

The problem with The Problem of Pain is the ususal one-sided approach; that God is ultimately responsible for the sum of human suffering.
What is forgotten or ignored in discussions such as these is that there are two forces at war in the universe: Good and Evil. It's not difficult to find Evil; it surrounds us on the news, in the neighbor hood and our homes. If God were to destroy Evil He would be accused to depriving mankind of the freedom of choice to serve Him or HaSatan. God showed His hand at the cross--which many reject--when the Christ ransomed the souls of all mankind. Joshua summed up the our dilemma when he said, "Choose this day whom you will serve; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
Pain is not a problem only for the "good person" (whatever that means) it is a problem for every person, and it will not end until the war is ended: Which will be soon...but not soon enough.
Consider reading Gary Haugen's "The Good News About Injustice." It will add dimensions to one's thinking about all things Theoditic. ec

I just finished it a few days ago and I am going to have to go back and read it again. All of Lewis' works are deep and stimulate thought, one of the things that it so brilliant about him. One does not have to agree with him theologically to see the logic of his thought patterns and arguments. He is also very respectful in choosing not to comment on topics in which he has no experience or knowledge instead of just throwing out any old opinion. He is always worth the read but be open to reading multiple times and weighing what he says against your own experience.

I also thought The Problem of Pain flows better after having read Mere Christianity. The logic he lays out about the existence and benevolence of God moves smoothly into the thoughts of The Problem of Pain. Make sure you give that one a try sometime, too!

I found the book 'Evilnand the god of love' by hicks really helpful

Read this text three times! Flawed arguments stemming from absurd assumptions. I agree with the reviews that I have read that this book was written to make Christians feel better. It may have spoken to other people in the early 20th century but it didn't work for me. I was disappointed. If this is the best that a "leading Christian thinker" can do with theodicy, it is no wonder this issue is daunting for Christians. Dreadful!

Alana wrote: "I just finished it a few days ago and I am going to have to go back and read it again. All of Lewis' works are deep and stimulate thought, one of the things that it so brilliant about him. One does..."

On the contrary. If you don't agree with him theologically, the arguments make no sense. There are so many assumptions about God that you have to accept. If you don't, then this is nothing more than another "God works in mysterious ways" essay.

Either there is or is not a war between Good and Evil. If there is not, man is his own judge and can choose to be good or evil. If there is such a war, it exists in the world and within each person who again has the choice of living as good or evil.
The application of this choice is a core issue of Theodicy. If pain and suffering were aimed at only those who choose to be evil and not at those who choose the good, there would actually be no choice. Man would choose to serve God (His existence is assumed in this post) for the sole purpose of avoiding pain and suffering; and that choice would not be born out of worship of the true God, but would be rooted in selfishness, whic is foreign to God.
Those who understand the Character of God also comprehend His goodness and know too that His is not the hand that brings the ongoing (but not eternal) experience of pain and. Epicurius' riddle is neither true nor a riddle, but the musings of a pagan philosopher who knew not God.
If one wishes to know God, study His lifestyle; it is summarized in the Ten Words. Which of those are evil?
Post Script: to those of faith and otherwise, the most difficult issue in the Problem of Pain is the suffering of "Los Innocentes." ec

"Those who understand the Character of God also comprehend His goodness and know too that His is not the hand that brings the ongoing (but not eternal) experience of pain"

Edwin, So why would an all-powerful and loving God allow this to happen? The church has been responsible for immense evil over the past couple of millennia. Why would he allow that to continue in his name?
Your argument of choice is sophistry (from another pagan). God declines to prove his existence and therefore we have no valid choice. No-one can truly "know" God, we can only have faith in His existence. A decision made only on the basis of faith has no validity, particularly when so much evidence points to His non-existence. He is not actually giving us a choice at all.

Kerry wrote: ""Those who understand the Character of God also comprehend His goodness and know too that His is not the hand that brings the ongoing (but not eternal) experience of pain"

Edwin, So why would an ..."



God gives everyone a choice. God does not force anything upon us, He is not a puppet master. Each of us makes up our own mind.

God has done more than enough to prove His existence. It is our choice to open our eyes or bury our heads.

I would ask anyone who wonders why God allows suffering to happen to look at themselves and see what they are doing to eliminate suffering. Why is it only on God? And, if you choose to blame God for all suffering, do you also thank Him for all good things?

I know this, while I do not suffer nearly as much as many many many people, I have had my share of difficult times. I am finally at a point where I understand why the Bible tells us to be thankful for all things, even our suffering. I don't have all the answers but I am starting to understand about being thankful for suffering.

C.S. Lewis was brilliant. Whether you agree with him or disagree with him, he was brilliant. My opinion is that those who down play Lewis realize they are no match for his intellect.

Hi Cash, are you crediting me or Lee. The Goodreads posting is confusing here. I was quoting a previous writer. I believe that C. S. Lewis was intellectually lazy, ideologically blinded and historically ignorant. The Problem of Pain is one of the most intellectually vacuous books I have ever read. The Bible itself is a badly written, poorly edited historical artifact that has virtually nothing useful for 21st Century humanity. The sooner we grow out of this archaic, superstitious rubbish the better for humanity. Sorry Cash if I have misinterpreted your post, I have lost the direction of this stream.

@ Lee. Sorry but God has done nothing to prove his existence. If he had we would not be in the superstitious chaos we are in at the present and would not be still slaughtering each other in his names. I neither blame God nor thank him because I don't believe he exists. My Christian friends claim he is charge, in which case he is doing a lousy job. As for the Bible, it has very little that is useful for anyone in the real world other than the occasional statement of the bleeding obvious. I have spent much of my life working to improve conditions for real people in the real world and religion has been nothing more than a damn nuisance, most of the time, getting in the way of people trying to bring in genuine policies that would make a real difference to suffering people. I could go on for hours with my experiences but this is not the forum.
Being thankful for suffering is just stupid. It is like being thankful for poverty and disease! Being thankful is easy and ineffective, trying to do something to help is hard, courageous and useful.
As for this book and Lewis, an average Grade 12 literature student could point out the historical fallacies, ideological contradictions and logical absurdities that are rife in this text. He should stick to creative writing. But, then again, I guess he has.

Kerry wrote: "The Bible itself is a badly written, poorly edited historical artifact that has virtually nothing useful for 21st Century humanity. The sooner we grow out of this archaic, superstitious rubbish the better for humanity."

Seriously, we need to stop loving our neighbors, dong good to those who curse us, caring for widows and orphans, and reaching out to the least in society. Don't these religious asshats know that the poor can't pay for anything you do for them? Also, homeless people are gross. And I sure as hell won't be turning the other cheek. You slap me across one of mine, I'll smack both of yours.

Kerry, I hope you are happy with your beliefs. I am certain of what is true and what is not. You can call me stupid or whatever you wish. I am not arrogant enough to believe that I am on the same level as God or that He owes me an answer about anything.

As far as Lewis goes I am all for letting people read it for themselves and decide what they think. He has been quoted by many incredibly intelligent people.

We will have to agree to disagree. I hope your day is going well.

Actually Cash, I am not sure what CC's point is. If it is sarcasm aimed at me then she is creating a straw man argument as I have never stated we shouldn't help the disadvantaged, quite the reverse in fact. Maybe she believes that you have to be religious to want to help others. I have worked with many people in charities and organisations working to help others who were atheists and many who were religious. Helping each other is a basic human function which gives meaning to our lives and no supernatural intervention should be necessary.

Yes Lee, I am happy with my lack of belief in the supernatural, but atheism is not a belief, it is an absence of belief. The difference is important. I would never be ignorant enough to call you stupid and, wow, I envy your certainty! You are right that incredibly intelligent people have quoted Lewis, but not always positively. In the end if you are prepared to accept his basic assumptions you can accept what flows from them more easily. But when he steps into areas of history or anthropology, he needs to get his facts right.
Maybe I am just arrogant, but as a father, I would never ignore the questions of my children.
My day is going really well thanks. Hope you are having a good one too. :-)

Kerry wrote: "Actually Cash, I am not sure what CC's point is. If it is sarcasm aimed at me then she is creating a straw man argument as I have never stated we shouldn't help the disadvantaged, quite the reverse..."

A) He. I should think the mustache made that clear.

B) You said the Bible has nothing useful for the modern world, I was just showing how wrong you are. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if everyone just did what Jesus said to do, you could come up with no possible complaint.

C.C. wrote: "Kerry wrote: "Actually Cash, I am not sure what CC's point is. If it is sarcasm aimed at me then she is creating a straw man argument as I have never stated we shouldn't help the disadvantaged, qui..."

I agree with you, CC. One of the things that amazes me about the Bible is how accurate it is. Take a look at many self help books and you will see that the things they say will help are often times the exact same things the Bible says to do. They have done this study or that study and have come to the exact conclusion the Bible gave a couple thousand years ago.

If the Bible is not true it is the biggest conspiracy in all of history - written by dozens of different writers over thousands of years, all telling the same message.

Sorry CC. I spotted the rabbit not the moustache. With my failing eyesight, I thought it was a bow tie. I know how you feel. With my name I am assumed female often, which is why I use a photo. Apologies.
I agree with you that the Bible has some good lessons for the modern world, but the same can be said for hundreds of books, religious or otherwise. There are no shortage of moral tales around. You also have to overlook the horrible bits, God given permission for pillage and rape, instructions on how to sell your daughters into slavery, Joshua's ethnic cleansing of the "Holy Land" etc. Most Christians I know haven't read the Bible as much as I have and only know the nice bits they get taught. Taking good lessons from the Bible is one thing. Treating it as a moral compass or as "the word of God", is another entirely.

"In fact, I would go so far as to say that if everyone just did what Jesus said to do, you could come up with no possible complaint."

You are absolutely correct in most cases. If you read the New Testament carefully, he isn't always recorded as a turn the other cheek guy, but that is not the point. The crucial point is that no organisation has failed to follow the teachings of Jesus more consistently than the Christian churches. If the notion of religion consisted of nothing more than a person's personal relationship with their god(s), I would have no possible complaint, nor would any atheist I know. Sadly it has never been like that and, I suspect never will.

"I agree with you, CC. One of the things that amazes me about the Bible is how accurate it is. Take a look at many self help books and you will see that the things they say will help are often times the exact same things the Bible says to do."

Not sure what you mean Lee. If you mean that there are lessons in the Bible that we can draw on for our own lives, then you are correct, as there are similar lessons in hundreds of other stories written over the centuries. Most of them are obvious and none of them need a massive religious infrastructure or an imaginary friend to make them obvious. Thou shalt not kill! Yep figured that one out. But two separate sects of Christianity blessed the nuclear bombs before they dropped them on Japan. My point is, good people can do good things without the need for the supernatural context or the child terrifying images of hell and damnation.

If you are saying the Bible is historically accurate then that is simply not correct and there have been many books written on that topic. Read the conflicting accounts of the day of Jesus' purported resurrection in the Apostolic Gospels and you will see what I mean. This is only one example. There are many more.

The Bible is not the conspiracy, it is just an anthology of stories. Religion is the conspiracy!

Sorry Cash, if I have offended you. I was only answering posts that were already here. I thought this was a place where people were free to discuss issues arising from the books we read. My error. I will depart from this thread and leave you to it.

"Kerry, I think you've made clear your superior intellect and atheist beliefs."

Was that really called for?
Cheers

Edwin wrote: "The problem with The Problem of Pain is the ususal one-sided approach; that God is ultimately responsible for the sum of human suffering.
What is forgotten or ignored in discussions such as these ..."

The problem with that is that if God is all knowing, then he knows the choices we are going to make, and he knows already whether or not they will lead to suffering for ourselves and others, and he knows that they will lead to damnation for ourselves and possibly even others. So in the end it is all predestined to happen and there isn't really any meaningful choice involved. God knows we will do horrible things even before he creates us, so you cant really say we have free will or that our choices mean anything because they are still following the path already laid out for us.

Going along with that line of thinking, you have to wonder why god would create someone who would cause so much suffering in the first place. You could argue that there is good that comes from the suffering, but isn't an all powerful god capable of giving us that good without forcing us to suffer? The person causing the suffering is going to be damned for all eternity, so you can't say their getting anything out of it ultimately. Add on to that all the good people who had to suffer because of that evil person, and it makes you wonder why God would ever create that person in the first place. Knowing that there was nothing good to come of them that god himself couldn't already give us, what was the point of making good people suffer?

If the answer is "freedom" then I question why god would ever make the evil option at all. Why not give us a choice between two good things instead of a wonderful thing and a horrible thing? Why allow Satan to keep on existing when it is completely with in his power to send him away?

More over, if god is all good, where did the suffering and evil come from in the first place?

Also, please excuse my spelling and grammar for now. It's very late here, and I'm on good reads because I can't get to sleep. I'll try to remember to go back andcheck over my spelling and grammar tomorrow.

I don't think this is the proper place to debate the Bible. I have heard all of the rebuttals before, the differences are minute and lend more credibility. If there were no differences people would cry collusion. There is always a way out, a way to say "don't believe it". Jesus performed miracles right in front of people and they still didn't believe. Why would I think people who haven't seen anything close to that would believe? If they didn't open their eyes to Jesus Christ Himself, why would I think anyone will open their eyes to what I have to say?

I have plenty of evidence. I have looked at it. I was not raised a Christian. I have investigated and looked at many many things. What angers me the most is when anyone says I believe blindly or haven't looked at the facts. That is simply not true. I certainly do not bury my head to reality.

Each of us is responsible for ourselves. In my heart, and in my mind, I know the truth. It makes no difference to me what anyone else believes. I have heard a lot of weak arguments that do not change my mind. I haven't heard anything new from anyone here to change my mind.

the issue here is that the unregenerate have created an paradox where an antimony exist. God is Sovereign and man is responsible. We see that best in the stories of Joseph (what you meant for evil God meant [planned] for good), Job and of course our Lord Jesus whom God ordained would die in the fulness of time on a Roman cross and yet was crucified by the wicked hands of men. Sovereignty and Responsibility. CS Lewis, who denies many essentials, never really solves this issue. However, it was solved early in the Church when it was realized God planned the Fall to the end that His Son would be glorified in the redemption of sinners and all to His Glory alone. There is no "If God" because then we creatures are judging the Creator and that is a dangerous position to be in. Nope. There is not "problem" of evil or pain. God, in His omnipotence has ordained the Fall and in His omnibenevolence for His Church uses all things to their benefit, growing them in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior and for the benefit of the Church as a whole. Persecution, suffering, evil, death, cancer, poverty, riches, blessing, feast or famine ALL come to us through our Heavenly Father's hand. Right now i'm working on my dissertation showing that the Belgic (Article 13) and the Heidelberg (Lord's Day 10) teach us what Scriptures says that there is no problem of evil except for the unregenerate. For the believer all things come to us in and through our Heavenly Father's LOVING Hand because He IS the Almighty One.

I also wrote a critique on this CS Lewis book and you can find it on Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/The-Problem-Pai...

Ken wrote: "Could you define theodicy? This is one of those words that only theologians use; surely, if it's relevant, it can be explained otherwise."

theodicy is defense of God's goodness and power in light of the existence of evil. essentially what people are trying to do when they offer a theodicy is saying there are evil things in the world, but here is an explanation for that evil and/or why God allows it.