Theodicy is hardly a novel topic, but I think any religious debate board deserves a thread on the issue, and I'd like to hear from some of our Christian members on this.

I'll talk about one specific example: Devil Facial Tumor Disease. This is a disease that afflicts Tasmanian devils. It's a form of cancer that is notable for being one of the only cancers that is contagious. Cancer cells sloughed off of one individual can infect another, and it's spreading throughout Tasmanian devil populations. When infected, the devils grow large, grotesque tumors on their faces; often, they'll get tumors in their mouths so large that they are unable to eat enough food and they starve to death.

Now, this seems like a pretty horrible way to die. So why would God allow this? Tasmanian devils have done nothing wrong. They have no original sin. They certainly lack the mental facilities to qualify as having "rejected" Jesus. Sure, they're called "devils," but that's not their fault.

Arguments can be made for why God would allow suffering among humans (not necessarily good arguments, but arguments nonetheless), but why would God allow such suffering among innocent creatures? He obviously cared about them enough to have Noah put two of them on the ark. Why would he turn around and give them this horrible cancer?

If anyone even attempts to say that animals don't suffer as much as humans I'll have PETA hunt you down.

"If anyone even attempts to say that animals don't suffer as much as humans I'll have PETA hunt you down."


Animals don't suffer as much as....aaaaagh!

I think most people and religions believe that animals are here for humans benefit. They are more of a useful object, than a being with a soul and feelings. I should probably look more into being a vegan. :P
So, it is rather easy for them to not need a justification for why a god would make them suffer.

Animals were here before humans. We shouldn't just treat them like they're dirt. And that means allanimals, not just pets.

Even if animals are just here for our benefit, that isn't justification for causing them suffering, it's just an excuse for not not causing them suffering. Certainly, a Tasmanian devil without grotesque facial tumors, or a deer without chronic wasting disease, is of more use to us.

Some Christians believe that the environment is just a resource to be consumed, and others believe it's God's beautiful creation and that we are its stewards. I know from past conversation that at least some of the Christians on here take the stewardship view, so I'd like to hear what they have to say on this.

As is often the case, the bible is of little help when deciding whether or not to care for the environment:

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Emphasis added)

Proverbs 12:10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

I think it is pretty clear why God has cursed the Tasmanian Devil's. Their very name reveals that they are Satan's spawn.

Seriously, if no Christians weigh in, it is pointless to discuss the problem of evil. It is not a problem for atheists. In this case, we subscribe to the germ theory of disease, not the God's curse theory of disease.

This is completely unhelpful, and you know you don't really have to post huge chunks of Biblical gibberish -- unless you're going to annotate it yourself or something -- the full text is, obviously, available all over the Net. Just a link or a mention of the chapter & verse would suffice.

What I think others are getting at, and you didn't address, is why does God punish animals for Man's sin? What did the goats and the fleas and the worms and the cats do wrong? Especially since they apparently don't even have Heaven to look forward to?

We're looking for a bit higher standard of evidence than you are used to, I'm afraid.

"When God created the universe and everything in it he made everything good. It wasn't until man sinned that evil entered the world and animals were eaten."

But did not God create the evil that was the fruit? He did not have to do that -- leave it out and there is no evil!

How many days after God created the world did the fruit get eaten? Isn't everything in Genesis still the beginning?

So God did create evil, and he did it by creating the fruit and man at the beginning. That seems pretty clear.

I apologize for my post before. I am rather new at this. I edited it.

"So God did create evil, and he did it by creating the fruit and man at the beginning. That seems pretty clear."

The fruit itself wasn't evil. The reason that it was a sin for man to eat of it was because God specifically told them not to.

Edit: I'm just going to delete my last post since it was pointless.

So let me get this straight. God created the earth. God created the fruit. God created the man. God is all knowing. God knew every thought the man would think, every action the man would take, before he even created the man. God knew exactly how much willpower, how much of a sense of obedience, how much strength of character it would take for the man to resist the temptation of the fruit before the man even drew his first breath. God chose not to give the man any additional strength of character, will, or obedience. God chose to tempt the man, knowing in advance that the man would be unable to resist temptation. God punished the man for being able to resist temptation. Therefore the man is responsible for bringing sin and evil into the world?

Tom,

Sounds a lot like my Dad -- nothing's ever Dad's fault, it's always someone else's (usually the dang liberals). Dad never makes a mistake. Hmmm. Maybe my Dad is God?

What purpose did the apple even serve, if not to exist simply for man to eat and thereby doom the rest of us? Why did it have to be there at all? God is still responsible because a. he created the forbidden fruit and b. he responded to its consumption by inflicting evil on the world.

Of course, that's all irrelevant. Even if man is solely responsible for bringing evil into the world, that doesn't explain why innocent creatures are made to suffer for it.

God even went out of his way to create a talking serpent with incredible powers of persuasion.

In fact if man was the one who created evil, and God was powerless to stop it, then how powerful and good can God be?

The fruit itself wasn't evil. The reason that it was a sin for man to eat of it was because God specifically told them not to.

Don't you find it odd that god didn't want them to eat from the tree of knowledge? I mean, what was god trying to hide anyway? The way I figure it, satan was a pal to these two because he said, "God wants knowledge all to himself huh? screw him. now we will know exactly what god is up to with all the pain and suffering he is willing to cause."

And yes, we still have not explained why innocent animals must suffer seemingly pointless diseases like that of the Tasmanian devil.

"...we still have not explained why innocent animals must suffer seemingly pointless diseases like that of the Tasmanian devil."


Correction: I think the rationalists here have explained the disease. It is the all-powerful God believers who have not explained the disease.

Thanks to Esther for giving some input, even if it just created more confusion.

Well of course RC.....my appeal is to the religious folks.

Apparently she didn't want to stick around to see how it plays out, as she has already left the group.

It's going to be hard to find conservative evangelicals to get into this debate; we should look for Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc -- we are more likely to find some attempts at an intellectual approach outside of the fundamentalists.

Divine intervention is in fact when God intervines. This means that He is not the main "Actor" of the "System". The example is probally the result of something that mankind has done. God told mankind to take care of the garden (Earth) and we don't. Therefore how can we blame God for this? Let's give blame where blame is due and ask the better question. How could we (mankind) have allowed this. Which is also the reason why we pray however Faith without work is dead. We have a responsiblity to pray and do work to solve issues. Everyone here has probally just blamed God and used Him as a scape goat. How many of you actually donated time or money to this cause?

Eric,

I know of no evidence that human action is responsible for devil facial tumor disease, and even if it is, there are doubtless other such diseases that afflict animals for which humans are not responsible. If you're going to claim a causal link between human action and animal suffering, you need to present evidence for it. If it's something abstract like sin, why would animals suffer for human sins?

Dan,

Do you disagree that the actions of humans can both directly and indirectly effect animals? This is more abstract, but my point is that we (mankind) are suppose to take care of the environment that we are in...and as a whole...we don't. This effects everything that is on the Earth. This is a issue whether you are talking about an animal that finds it's home missing to build a mall or an animal with cancer. Global warming...etc. If Adam (mankind) was suppose to take care of this Earth and sin cause him (us) to neglect that job. The whole Earth would be effected for that folly.

In short...since you are talking about a Christian God. Based on the bible, the responsibility to take care of this Earth belongs to us. We can pray for God to intervene, but it is still our responsibility. This is most likely our fault somehow since we would be the main "actors" on the "system".

If the cause of animal suffering is abstract - man's sin, man's failure to care for the Earth - I don't see why the consequences should be borne by innocent animals rather than humans. One of three things must be true:

1. God designed the Earth intending for Tasmanian devils to one day suffer from this horrible cancer, unless man, as is his responsibility, can prevent or cure it.

2. Man failed to care for the Earth in a more abstract sense, and as punishment God gave Tasmanian devils this horrible cancer.

3. Humans by their direct action have directly and explicitly caused this cancer.

Numbers 1 and 2 seem unnecessarily cruel. Number 3 has no evidence to support it. You can insert any disease, parasite, etc. into this argument. Certainly, there instances of animals suffering in ways that are in no way caused by human action. If this is the case, it must be God's will. So why has God designed the world this way?

I don't understand God. He gives a huge responsibility without any reason that we'll be able to fulfill it, then if we do one thing wrong (which is the way he supposably created us, wiht flaws), then he punishes us!
Wow, your God is evil! My god, on the other hand, is kind and caring to all. RESPECT THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!

@♥Dr. Pepper♥ It's actually worse than that because according to christianity god is omniscient which would mean that there's no "if" about it, it's just a matter of waiting for it to happen.
The ultimate evil; creating a world you know will go down the toilet and then blaming it on your own creations!

Yeah Cairnraiser----it certainly seems like the ultimate "passing the buck."

Dont't it just!? Makes John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." seem fairly ironic.
That would be that tough lovin' I keep hearing about, eh?

Xalicelikewhoa,

This doesn't address the question of why God would make innocent animals suffer. Are they, too, sinners? Are they, too, supposed to test their character and better themselves?

That seems unnecessarily cruel, especially for an omnibenevolent god.

"...so people shouldnt really argue about it because theres not much we can do"

In other words, just shut up and don't let thinking interfere with faith.

how would we learn anything if God saved us from any misfortune? The bad times make us stronger and strengthen our faith

God could certainly give the world a lot less misfortune than it has and we would still learn lessons. You are incorrect in stating that the bad times make us stronger and strengthen our faith.

Sometimes the "bad times" just kill people. They don't make people stronger because the people die. You would think God could have come up with a better way to teach people lessons than murdering over 225,000 people in, oh I don't know, the 2004 Tsunami...for example.

I would think he might be able to come up with a smaller punishment where we would still learn our lessons. I certainly don't know what possible lesson i could learn from Tasmanian Devils having cancerous facial tumors.

What lesson do you learn from it Xalicelikewhoa?

Allow me to rephrase the question a bit, in a way that excludes any possiblity of human agency. Have you ever watched any of those wildlife shows that graphically depict predators hunting in the wild? The predator doesn't always kill the prey before it starts eating, so you'll sometimes see a hungry lion gnawing on an antelope that's still feebly kicking, blood spurting out of ruptured arteries and obviously in agonizing pain. Wouldn't a benevolent god had found some way around this? Predators that always kill their prey before eating, or something? Yes, yes, i know, all animals were vegetarians before Adam ate the apple, but surely the animals were innocent? Or are they so insignificant to god that their suffering doesn't matter?

Once again, the atheist's are the only one left arguing the problem of evil, even though it is not a problem for the atheist.

This reminds me once more of Bart Erhman's God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer. What started him on his path from theism to atheism was when it became clear to him that Christian's would not/could not resolve the issue, and led him to the conclusion that a divine God would could not exist if such an issue was not resolvable.

Eric goes to church regularly (according to his posts). I was hoping that not knowing the answer himself, he could at least supply us the learned opinion of his pastor.

wow...I am being called out. I have been disconnected for the last week. Anyway, I believe that it is impossible to remove a human agent for the equation simply because the fall of man is the central concept on why there is suffering in the world. God gave Adam (Which God refered to both Adam and Eve as Adam) dominion over the Earth. There for his actions affected everything that he was over. This is not a tough concept. President Bush (soon President Obama) can create policies that directly and indirectly affect animals.

Yes, yes, i know, all animals were vegetarians before Adam ate the apple

This is true and because of this...you can see how animals were affected by the actions of thier Earthly king. Also, fyi...Adam ate the fruit in the midst of the garden...it is not neccessary a apple.

Eric --

Nice to have you back. I hope you enjoyed the winter solstice.

Questions: When you ask your pastor (or whatever honorific he applies to himself) about the problem of evil, does he use the same circular reasoning you use? Have you ever asked your pastor about the problem of evil?

Eric,

So do you honestly not see how ridiculous you are being? You really think that a guy named Adam existed, ate a piece of fruit that gvae him knowledge (which somehow is a bad thing) and that is what led to all the suffering in the world? You don't see that this story is ludicrous and childish? Doesn't it make much more sense that there is suffering in the world because the world is a harsh place and there is no "omnibenevolent" creature watching over us?

Also, this still doesn't answer the question of why god would make animals suffer too. It simply does not address how an omnibenevolent being could make innocent animals suffer because of what Man did. You saying Adam's actions affected everything doesn't answer the question. It doesn't because God could have simply made it so that Adam's actions did not affect innocent animals.

With Eric's help, I think I have solved the problem:

1. Why does man suffer?
2. Because Adam disobeyed God.
3. Why did Adam disobey God?
4. Because he had free will.
5. Why did God give Adam free will?
6. So Adam would have the choice of suffering.
7. Why did Adam choose suffering?
8. Without suffering, man could not regain God's grace.
9. Why did man lose God's grace?
10. Because Adam disobeyed God.
11. Why did Adam disobey God?
12. Because he had free will.
13. Why did God give Adam free will?
14. So Adam would have the choice of suffering.
15. Why did Adam choose suffering?
16. Without suffering, man could not regain God's grace.
17. Why did man lose God's grace?
18. Because Adam disobeyed God.....................

Wait. Sorry, never mind.

Totally different subject, but i must confess that i, for one, would like to see some fossil evidence of these herbivorous lions and tigers. Or is it only appropriate to ask for fossil evidence of a missing link when arguing against evolution?

As to animal suffering... if causing animals to suffer due to the actions a human, when they had no power or control or influence over the actions of that human, and this is the act of a benevolent god...what would be your idea of a malevolent god?

"what would be your idea of a malevolent god?"

Most religions have malevolent gods, demanding constant sacrifice to ward off the arbitrary wrath of the supreme being(s). This quite logical, as far back as Epicurus is was acknowledged an all-powerful/all-good god is an impossibility.

Such gods destroy universes, or on a trivial level cause disease, floods, earthquakes, war, etc. In the case of the Jews, the malevolent god constantly challenges even your day to day existence.

To my knowledge, only Christians (maybe Muslims?) maintain god is all-powerful and all-good. Which is why the paradox presented in the problem of evil (in this discussion the focus is suffering) is addressed mostly to them.

I am confused slightly. Do you guys believe that you know everything there is to know about the Christian Bible and the Christian God? There have been assumptions of what I beleive and what I do not. When questions such as this comes up, there are people that want me in on the discussion then it seems like there is some Christian bashing...I don't understand that. Do you even care about my answer...or are you trying to direct the conversation a certain way because you have a script that you know that you are going to say. Do you guys give each other virtual high-fives for crazy comments toward me or what I believe. I am not upset...not really offended either...however this is funny.

With Eric's help, I think I have solved the problem:

I do not need neither do I want your help.

God gave Adam (Which God refered to both Adam and Eve as Adam) dominion over the Earth.

The choice of the King effects everything in the Kingdom...this is the nature of a monarchy. If Adam had dominion...his choice would effect whatever he is over...and all of his subjects.

Totally different subject, but i must confess that i, for one, would like to see some fossil evidence of these herbivorous lions and tigers. Or is it only appropriate to ask for fossil evidence of a missing link when arguing against evolution?

Good point

5. Why did God give Adam free will?

Where did you come up with your answer?

Eric said:

5. Why did God give Adam free will?

"Where did you come up with your answer?

From you --

"God gave Adam (Which God refered to both Adam and Eve as Adam) dominion over the Earth. There for his actions affected everything that he was over. This is not a tough concept. President Bush (soon President Obama) can create policies that directly and indirectly affect animals."

There are only two actors present, God and Adam. So unless God is making the choice to inflict suffering, that leaves only Adam. To use your Obama analogy, God made the policy decision, but left the implementation up to Adam, his one and only cabinet member.

R.C.,

That was pretty good...however I do not agree with your final conclusion. I would like to know what others think though about your post.

Eric,

You still have yet to truly answer the question of how an omnibenevolent god could let innocent creatures suffer. I won't even go into the concept of inheriting suffering from previous human generations, as if I did something to deserve the suffering caused by Adam eating the peach.

How could anyone who is all good let someone or something that is completely innocent suffer when it is in his power to stop the suffering?

Please answer this.

Eric,

On your claim that everything a king does affects everything in his kingdom:

When a leader makes a decision, that choice may have far-reaching repercussions, or it may not. If it does have widespread impact, that impact will occur through perceptible, explicable mechanisms. For example, if a president decides to eat a sandwich, that will not cause an ambulance to magically transmogrify into an Abrams tank; the decision is inconsequential. On the other hand, suppose that that sandwich had been made with tainted meat, and the president then died as a result of eating it. Imagine that his successor implemented new policy diverting funds from health care to defense, resulting in the manufacture of fewer ambulances and a greater number of tanks. What we would see in that case would be a mechanism by which a leader's choice led, albeit in a roundabout way, to the replacement of ambulances with tanks.

Now consider the case of Adam and the forbidden fruit. Adam eats a fruit and suddenly herbivores are spontaneously replaced by predators. What's the logic behind the change? Where is the mechanism by which the metamorphosis occurs? Realize also that we're not talking merely about a simple change in behavior, but about profound physiological and anatomical change (teeth, claws, musculature, digestive system etc). There's no natural link between Adam's actions and your imagined alteration; the change only comes about because your God makes the decision, and your God implements the decision. It makes absolutely no sense to blame the existence of predation on Adam when it could only have come into existence -- in the Biblical scenario -- through the deliberate actions of your petty, spiteful God.

What's the logic behind the change? Where is the mechanism by which the metamorphosis occurs?

Uh, hello? Magic.

D'oh!

Nathan --

I think Eric have an answer, it was just not a very good one (I attempted to show it used circular reasoning).

It would be amazing if Eric could answer, as no one ever has, it is an acknowledged paradox for theists.

I think the real question for Eric, is: What does he think about the fact the his core belief system is self-refuting? Has he spoken to his spiritual leaders about it, and what do they say?

I am not bothered by Eric's inability to answer, because I believe him to be sincere. I am more bothered by those who take his tithing money claiming they do know the answer, and yet refuse to supply it to worshipers like Eric, taking advantage of his acceptance. Billions in tithing money. Without having to answer to anyone.

The greatest scam of all time.

I am more bothered by those who take his tithing money claiming they do know the answer, and yet refuse to supply it to worshipers like Eric, taking advantage of his acceptance. Billions in tithing money.

I have been to many churches. Some BIG and some small. I have seen the pastor leave in a Benz. I have also seen a Pastor with no car, carpooling to church. I have seen a Pastor's family go without because of the needs of the church. I have seen full-time Pastor's give their salary back because the church did not have money to pay them. I have seen Pastor's personally pay for things that members needed to help them out. I have seen Pastor's empty out their personal bank account. You have a glamourized view of a pastor if all you see are the ones that leave church in a benz...or you live in a great neighborhood where that is the norm...however...it is not the norm on a national level.

Now...back to suffering. God made man (according to the Bible) in His image. This would include the right to choose. Without the freedom of choice, it would not be His image. Therefore you can not have true obedence without temptation. You can't have true love, without scarafice. Suffering was not the goal.

So Adam would have the choice of suffering.

This statement is misleading. The suffering is a byproduct of the disobedenice and not the goal. God stated not to eat it and told him the result of eating it. You shall surely die (This is another question entirely that I am sure it is on some peoples mind). Sure an all knowing God knows what will happen, but without the choice...how is there true obedience and true love? Even when you look at God, His love is measured by scrafice. John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son. To have the people that you created spit in your face, call you names, beat you, pleace a crown of thorns on your head, nail you to a tree, and have you slowly bleed to your lungs colapse. That takes a lot of love to save people that is doing this to you. I know that you guys do not believe this at all. I am sure the smart comments are soon to come...yet you asked me.

To be clear...animals suffer because Adam had dominion over the animals and he failed to do his job. Even now, being desendants of Adam...we still don't take care of the animals. It is this massive failure that they suffer.

Eric,

I don't mean to change the subject, but this caught my eye:

God refered to both Adam and Eve as Adam

Is this explicitly stated in the bible? Or is this simply the way you interpret the bible? To me, it smacks of the type of logic where a Christian says, "The bible can't be misogynistic, because God is benevolent, so by 'Adam' he must really mean 'Adam and Eve.'" I'm not trying to bash you, I'm just curious.

Back on topic:

I'd like to reiterate two points that have already been made. 1. As Rick pointed out, contagious marsupial cancer does not logically follow from human consumption of fruit; even if the cause is human action, the result is still God's responsibility, unless there exists some other mechanism to connect these seemingly unrelated events. 2. Even if it could be satisfactorily explained how Adam eating the forbidden cantaloupe would lead to devil facial tumors, that would only explain the mechanism and not the reason.

The confusion here is between proximate and ultimate explanations. Proximate explanations answer the "how" question (the mechanism); ultimate explanations answer the "why" question (the reason). You've presented a proximate explanation (albeit an insufficient one) seemingly as a way to absolve God of guilt and place the blame squarely on the shoulders of mankind.

You still haven't answered (or maybe I haven't noticed) the "why" question. Why must all this innocent suffering exist? If it's to teach us lessons, why is this the method God chose? Why can some lessons be taught with parables or stone tablets, but this lesson requires inflicting torture on billions of innocent creatures, many of whose suffering we will never even discover? Why, when Jesus came to save us all, did his lessons not replace the lessons we learn from devil facial tumors and eliminate animal suffering? Not how, but why?

Dan,

Thank you for your post. I will be more clear. The Bible states that Sin enterd the world and death through sin,by one man...Adam. Before the fruit eating, there was no death and no sickness. After...there was. The mere fact that cancer is a sickness is the result of the fruit eating.

He called thier name Adam

Genesis 5
1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

With this, you can't neccessary say that every place that the Bible says Adam, it is refering to them both. It is a context thing. There are verses in the New Testament that says the first man Adam...this is clearly Adam excluding his wife.

It was Adam that called his wife Eve.

And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Eric,

From your answer I infer the following:

Sin is some sort of supernatural force that gives rise to death and suffering, both by causing humans to actually inflict death and suffering and also by causing death and suffering to spontaneously exist. So, there must be some mechanism whereby either sin or suffering can be transported and transmitted. Sin spores, maybe? So either a Tasmanian devil gets infected with a suffering spore and this causes its cancer, or it gets infected with a sin spore, commits a sin and is punished with cancer. Is this inference correct? If so, can you elaborate on the mechanism (assuming that suffering is not, in fact, propagated via spores)?

This still doesn't address the ultimate question. Fruits are not inherently imbued with sinfulness. God either created a fruit whose eating could fill the world with suffering, or created a being whose exercise of free will could fill the world with suffering. Why did he do this?

One of two things must be true:

1. Sin and suffering are forces beyond God's control. This would absolve God of responsibility for non-human suffering; it could simply be an unintended consequence. However, this is inconsistent with the notion that God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator who sustains the universe.

2. Sin and suffering are God's creations. Even if God didn't cause suffering to happen (Adam did, tsk), God still created a universe with the capacity for suffering and beings with a capacity for sin. He defined the nature of sin and suffering. Suffering could just as easily have been created with different characteristics so that innocent animals would not have to experience it. God, presumably by choice, designed suffering in such a way that when it came into the world (on the heels of sin), it would spread to all corners of the earth and all innocent, living beings. What was God's reason for this?