sleepy jack

You're kind of defeating your own argument by acknowledging war and relationships have similar causes you know. To treat it like one can exist in your ideal world and the other can't, despite having the same/similar causes is to create an inconsistent world where there's no real structure other then arbitrary lines in the sand.

I also don't understand how you can argue that individual suffering is acceptable but mass suffering is unacceptable. Why? Because people die in a war? Again this goes back to the cause - it has to deal with men with too much power and an ego complex conflicting with men of a similar nature. Or forcing themselves on no men at all but a loose array of people. It's all Hobbesian brutality though, even if it's one individual deciding they don't love another individual as opposed to entire states. It's unpleasant but when you throw more people into the conflict you're upping the stakes that much. I honestly don't understand how you can treat it one as objectively bad all the time and one as an acceptable life lesson. Besides, who's to say war doesn't touch anyone anything?

Also, again, I think you're showing your own biblical ignorance here. Sickness and so on comes from man's falling and estrangement from god. The cure for cancer is divinity, even if it's not of this world (not including when that divinity becomes of this world in the form of Jesus) and it's remaining devout during that trial that leads to that divinity (see the story of Job which argues against most of your objections.) It's the lesson learned in the suffering that makes that divinity worthwhile. If faith was never tried there would be no real conviction there, only a hollow sort of acceptance.

__________________