Horrendous Evils and The Goodness of God

Augustine's rejection of the free-will defence: an overview of the late Augustine's theodicy

“…This reading can appear to advance an aesthetic theory about evil that he had advocated earlier in his life, and which many believe Augustine never abandoned : a Plotinian divine ordering theodicy, according to which the divine ordering of evil contributes to the overall beauty of the universe (see Adams (1999) ; Burnaby (1938), 195-196 ;Greer (1996), 480-482). After noting that the angels are not mentioned in the creation account, and suggesting that Genesis may refer to them metaphorically in speaking of the creation of the light and the dark -meaning the holy and fallen angels, respectively -Augustine evokes a picture of the creation as a great and beautiful painting, beautiful when it ' has touches of black in appropriate places ', along with lighter colors elsewhere (CD, XI.23).…”

“…Sin, as a falling away from the good, cannot be made to contrast positively with the good simply by being appropriately punished, even if that punishment is itself a good (as Adams (1999), 39-43, also argues). The aesthetic approach implies that sin is actually the opposite of the good, which can be put in its proper place, thereby enhancing the overall beauty of the universe.…”

Souls in the Dark: Theodicy and Domesticity in Home

“…For our purposes, domestic suffering refers not to the painful experiences of abuse that fit under the category of horrendous evils (Adams 1999), but to the ways families fail to save each other from their worst impulses, and how they light a candle of hope even after the failure. Domestic suffering denotes the suffering love of family life, and its bias toward hope.…”

Two Christian Theologies of Depression: An Evaluation and Discussion of Clinical Implications

“…Some theologians and philosophers of religion draw a distinction between instances of suffering that can be transformative (or 'soul-making'), and instances of 'horrendous evil' that can serve only to 'dehumanize' the person or diminish their flourishing and can serve no teleological purpose (see Adams 1999). This reflects a concern that to characterize the extreme suffering of (say) a Holocaust or gang rape victim as transformative or soul building may fail to recognize the severity of the suffering and the harm it has caused.…”