[prometheus76]

The question also sneaks in the presupposition that suffering is anathema, or that suffering is never acceptable or worthwhile. Anyone who has been a part of a sports team (especially one that was successful) can attest to the fact that short-term suffering and sacrifice can lead to long-term success or joy.

There are many episodes in my life that were horribly difficult while I was going through them, but later on, I see how they have changed the course of my life and have benefited me deeply, in a way I couldn't foresee while going through the struggle.

The "problem of evil" also assumes that a world filled with automatons with no choice to do anything except submit to God's will is somehow superior to a world where anyone can choose to follow the Way of Life while surrounded by those who either haven't chosen yet, or have made the choice not to walk that path.

[dale_glass]

Suffering is an anathema, and only acceptable when necessary because no better ways are available. Deities can't avail themselves of such methods.

Eg, sawing somebody's leg off without anesthesia was the best we had before anesthetics. Today it'd be outright barbaric outside of extenuating circumstances like anesthetics being unavailable in some sort of emergency.

Whenever we get to the point where we can fully and painlessly fix up somebody's leg by using some sort of scifi device, then cutting it off even with modern anesthetics will become morally unacceptable as well.

The more ability, the less justifiable suffering becomes.

[prometheus76]

I don't agree with your assertion that suffering is anathema. Learning to accept and endure difficulty or pain or discomfort increases one's resilience. Soldiers are trained into this mindset and can accomplish much more as a result. Athletes train this way as well. Also, what about parenting? Telling your child to pull the weeds feels like an enormous burden of suffering when you are the 12-year-old child who has to go out in the summer sun to pull weeds, but for the parent, the view is quite different. The garden produces food for the family, and the child learns to do things they don't want to do or don't like to do.

Your statement "Suffering is anathema..." is Enlightenment thinking that has had a devastating effect on the physical and mental health of the cultures that have adopted it.

[dale_glass]

> I don't agree with your assertion that suffering is anathema. Learning to accept and endure difficulty or pain or discomfort increases one's resilience.

Resilience is only necessary if there's some purpose to it.

> Soldiers are trained into this mindset and can accomplish much more as a result. Athletes train this way as well.

Right, as a means to an end, for lack of a better solution. If we could accomplish those goals without suffering, we would. Suffering is a last resort, not good in itself. It's a compromise. An all-powerful entity doesn't need any, thus loses any justification to resort to it.

[krupan]

Sounds like we need to define "suffering"

For example, if everything was known and easy, wouldn't we be completely bored? Is boredom not also suffering?

[prometheus76]

I'm pretty much thinking of the definition from the 1913 edition of Websters: "Suf"fer*ing, n. The bearing of pain, inconvenience, or loss; pain endured; distress, loss, or injury incurred; as, sufferings by pain or sorrow; sufferings by want or by wrongs."

[midoridensha]

So I assume you'll refuse any anesthetia when you need surgery?

[prometheus76]

Black and white thinking will get you nowhere.