Suffering Resurrection

I often wonder about this line of argument for a few reasons. Most people in history have lived terrible lives full of violence, scarcity and disease. Much of this suffering is not temporary at all, and it seems to me something of an injustice to assert that their suffering must have meaning. The comfort can become a burden, in other words: "it may have meaning" can become "you shall find meaning." The argument can also be a dangerous salve for ignoring the quite human causes of suffering. Finally, maintaining the dilemma offers a challenge to good people with the ability to end suffering -- a challenge to be more principled and ethical than God. Beyond these somewhat goofy and obvious arguments, though, I think a case can be made that the Bible holds a more subtle and sophisticated view of human suffering: First, God's response to Job's suffering is not to imbue it with meaning. Rather, he goes on a litany about how little man knows of the workings of nature. If there is a meaning there (God asks a bunch of questions: what do you know about waves and gazelles and so on), it seems to be that mankind is a stupid wimpy little thing in a scary, mysterious and arbitrary universe - the best you can do is admit your ignorance. I understand there is a reading that says he gets more goats and wives and so the suffering had meaning after all, and taught him humility and so forth. But this reading seems facile, textually tenuous, and out of step with the clear ethical vision of Ecclesiastes which flatly says: everything is meaningless. One must make a pure gesture towards obedience of God's law, and loving God and God's universe as it is. The Babel, Jacob-wrestling, and name-grabbing stories in Genesis all have similar themes. Ok. So that's the 'old law,' not yet subject to its fulfillment and redemption through the Christ and so forth. Nonetheless, it speaks to who God is, and how we relate to these alleged imperfections of creation. Also, these themes continue in Paul's writings ("we see as though through a glass dimly") and so on. As for that, redemption logic just displaces the problem of evil, it doesn't solve it. That is, we still have to wrestle with the temptation of humankind and its subsequent exile from Eden, regardless of how the story ends. Either God 'needed' blood, because he is bound to some unseen higher Law -- in which case not omnipotent and thus not blameworthy -- or God is/was free to extend his grace without sacrifice. Also, the expressions of doubt and betrayal in the passion (take this cup, why have you forsaken me, etc.) ring most true to us, I think, exactly because they acknowledge the meaninglessness of suffering un-apologetically. They are expressions of God's self-betrayal, a thought to inspire fear and trembling but no comfort and meaning. Ok, sorry for the novella, and probably not the forum. The article caught my eye, and I didn't see a comment section on your blog. Feel free to delete if it stirs the pot or anything. Best, R