some answers. more questions.

I enjoyed the last couple of chapters of Kreeft's book the best. It's written in dialogue form between Reader and Author.

I can fully appreciate God not preventing every bad consequence as that would mean taking away our free will. But I wonder why if he intervenes to achieve positive outcomes, he doesn't intervene to decrease the evil just a little. If he gave me the opportunity to have such a wonderful life, why doesn't he stop poverty in the same way?? (I suppose you can argue it already is less and would be much worse if God weren't working in this world). The "man-made" evils I can almost accept: wars, criminal activity, drunk drivers. But what of the seemingly "gratuitous" evils: childhood brain tumors, earthquakes?

The Author's answer aren't always satisfying. He says that God isn't like our earthly father, always pulling us away from every possible suffering and injury, that there may be a purpose for suffering, and that his definition of "good" is not the same as ours. And that sounds like a cop-out I know, but I think it's only because we think suffering is the worst thing in the world. From God's perspective, he's working towards the eternal goal of shaping us to be like Jesus, and our suffering here is but a breath's worth of time.

Is God too much of a perfectionist towards free will and not enough of a compassionate God towards our suffering?

So how do we know that suffering always has a final good? Why do some concentration camp survivors come out with their faith in tact and others lose it?

"Are you saying suffering always works out for good?"
"Are you saying you know for sure it doesn't?"

The Author suggests that suffering always has the opportunity or potential for good, and that part is up to us and our free will. So what should be our attitude? Fatalistic because there will always be suffering? Forging out own destiny by conquering suffering? The author suggests we both trust and fight.