Complimentary Post
Fred Pratt 
Bruce Monson has beautifully voiced the dissonance that has plagued millions of people since the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent, yet benevolent deity has existed. But he has arrived at his position in a far more graphic way than most of us -- he constantly witnesses first-hand the carnage that belies such an idea. Folks like Bruce, caregivers on children's cancer wards, and eye-witnesses to the emaciated children of disease- and starvation-ravaged areas of the globe often find it impossible to reconcile their daily experiences with the "personal" God the the Christian tradition. And hundreds of millions of people living "ordinary" lives experience the incongruity of such an idea and find it a fierce challenge to their faith. In fact, there's a whole branch of theology devoted exclusively to the "Problem of Evil". It's called theodicy. And in at least 4000 years, there's never even been a consensus of opinion on the matter, let alone a rational, universally-accepted answer.
In early Greece, it was summarized very succinctly as follows: Either God wishes to end evil (suffering) and can not. Or he can but does not wish to. Or he neither wishes to nor can. Or he both wishes to and can. If he wishes to and can not, he is not all-powerful. If he can but does not wish to, he is not benevolent. If he neither wishes to nor can, he is neither benevolent nor all-powerful. If he wishes to and can, whence comes evil (suffering) over the face of the earth?
Of course the Christian would say that suffering is the result of Original Sin. Adam and Eve "fell", and since we're their descendents, through the magic of some kind of spiritual genetics, we're all equally culpable for death, suffering and all manner of mayhem in creation. Of course my answer to that would be -- the faulty chronology aside -- if you want to take on the blame for all the suffering of sentient beings in the history of the universe, feel free. I swear, for example, that I didn't have a thing to do with the agony the dinosaurs and other pre-historic creatures suffered during their grotesque annihilation. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Anyhow, Monson's essay was one of the most lucid and touching pieces I've ever read on the subject, and I've read a ton in the last 50 years or so.
He (as many of us do) knows only too well that there are really no substantive answers to his questions -- the "Problem" looms menacingly over the vitals of Christian theology, and it has from the beginning. Check Augustine, Acquinas, et al. Or Job, for that matter. The best answer poor ol' Job could get was something like, "Where the hell were you, Job, when I made made the stars and the all rest of this mess?" (Yeah, I paraphrased, but the substance remains.)
Monson also knows that the likelihood of his "one resurrection" offer being accepted is the the same category as winning the lottery without buying a ticket. Although, I must say, he's certainly paid the price.
Thanks, Bruce, for a remarkable personal insight.