The reality of evil in the world would seem to be in conflict with the idea of a God who is all powerfull and perfectly good. Why would God allow people to suffer?  

"Moreover, a love of pleasure has grown up with all of us from infancy. Therefore, this emotion has come to be in­grained in our lives and is difficult to erase. Even in our actions we use, to a greater or smaller extent, pleasure and pain as a crite­rion. For this reason, this entire study is necessarily concerned with pleasure and pain; for it is not unimportant for our ac­tions whether we feel joy and pain in the right or the wrong way. Again, it is harder to fight against pleasure than against anger, as Heraclitus says; and both virtue and art are always concerned with what is harder, for success is better when it is hard to achieve. Thus, for this reason also, every study both of virtue and of politics must deal with pleasures and pains, for if a man has the right attitude to them, he will be good: if the wrong attitude, he will be bad..."

(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics)

I think it might be helpfull to look at the philosophy of theodicy in the context of the one who started this kind of an inquiry. I strongly suggest that the link be followed and the quote examined in context for an in depth understanding of Lebniz theodicy. Leibniz wrote at length about the problem of evil in the world and suffering did not escape his attention. He cites the work of the Aristotlean, Thomas Aquinas, putting suffering both in perspective as philosophy and a Biblical issue:

"I grant the minor of this prosyllogism; for it must be confessed that there is evil in this world which God has made, and that it was possible to make a world without evil, or even not to create a world at all, for its creation has depended on the free will of God; but I deny the major, that is, the first of the two premises of the prosyllogism, and I might content myself with simply demanding its proof; but in order to make the matter clearer, I have wished to justify this denial by showing that the best plan is not always that which seeks to avoid evil, since it may happen that the evil is accompanied by a greater good. For example, a general of an army will prefer a great victory with a slight wound to a condition without wound and without victory. We have proved this more fully in the large work by making it clear, by instances taken from mathematics and elsewhere, that an imperfection in the part may be required for a greater perfection in the whole. In this I have followed the opinion of St. Augustine, who has said a hundred times, that God has permitted evil in order to bring about good, that is, a greater good; and that of Thomas Aquinas" http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Leibniz%20-%20Theodicy.htm

Consider the words of Joseph to his brothers after they had caused him so much suffering and grief." Can we find the purposes of God in our suffering, is there a greater good at the end?

"But as for you , ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." (Genesis 50:20)

I wont get into possible purposes for the Holocoust just yet but you might want to consider Gen. 50:24 when wondering at the unchanging purpose God has for Israel.

One of my all time favorite verses in all the Bible is an answer to Jobs worthless friends when they are trying to blame him for his misery. Just repent they tell him, you must have done something awefull and now your being punished, is their attitude. It proably never occured to these people that he was in trouble because God was going around braging about him. He responds to their presumptive rationalizations about how God is just and if Job is being punished its because he deserves it. Job argues passionatly that while the simple logic is perfectly true (God is just, God punishes the wicked), he hasnt done anything wrong. Frustrated he says things like this:

"Doubtless you are the people, and wisdom will die with you" (Job 12:2). and "Who doesnt know these things? (12:3)

Dont you just hate it when your in trouble and someone comes up and tells you what your problem is. You fall in a mud pit and cant get out and they say, 'well your all muddy because you traped in a mud pit.' Saying it is absolutly true and completely worthless, like the help files in MS Word.

" If only you would be altogether silent!
For you, that would be wisdom" (Job 13:5)

To paraphrase I think he is saying, Do something intelligent, shut up!

One of my favorite people in the Bible is very simular to Job. A guy is born blind and of course the religious believe the God being just, this must be deserved. "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" (John 9:2)

Now I have a tendancy when I hear a question like this to go off into a rant about presumption but this one is almost too easy. Then there is the question of how someone sins bad enough before they are even born to deserve to be born blind.

Jesus just says , "Neither...but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life" (John 9:3)

One of the things that are worth considering when you think about the realty of suffering si that sometimes there is something worth it all at the end. Job is grilled by God, who is speaking from a whirlwind (tornado) with a lot of questions that can only be answered correctly with either, I dont know, or you Lord. Then he looks at Jobs friends and says that they not only didnt know what they were talking about but he will forgive them only if sacrifices and prayers are offered by " My man Job". This is the praise that come from God as opposed to the praise that comes from men. I just thoug

Im interested in Apologetics and Im browsing around looking for a discussion forum where the subject is pursured in depth. What follows is a brief outline of what I think is the main idea of Christian Apologetics.

It has been my experience that the people who need Apologetics the least are Christians. Most believers are persuaded by the Holy Spirit and Christian scholars are aware of this. There is a distinction made between 'knowing' faith and showing (demonstrating) faith. This qoute is from one of the leading Christian apologists of our time. He was on of the people that Lee Strobel interviewed in his book "The Case for Christ" where he investigated the Christian faith with skills he aquired as a journalist.

"In this section I shall address the question, How does a Christian believer know that Christianity is true? In answering this question, I distinguish between the role of the Holy Spirit and the role of rational argument and evidence. I shall argue that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit gives us an immediate and veridical assurance of the truth of our Christian faith and that rational argument and evidence may properly confirm but not defeat that assurance." (William James Craig, Classical Apologetics)

Methods of evaluation historical evidence:

The three I am most familar with are internal, external, and bibliographical testing.Internal evidence:

This would be to look at the Bible itself, Messianic prophesy would be one of the main topics under this heading. Any kind of an apparant contradiction would be considered an 'internal' evidence. It is critical to the internal evidence testing that you identify the heart of the message (i.e. the resurection) then the particulars indexed in descending order of importance. The old adage that a text without a context is a pretext is like the slogan that hangs over the door of this department of evidence.

External evidence:

This would be what you called corrabative or a secondary source. Simon Greenleaf's discussion about motive and the New Testement wittness comes into play here as would an historians insight into the events in question. Archeology, palentology, astronomy, form criticism, even metaphysics are all external to the primary source evidence and should be accumulated in mass to carry the same weight as primary evidence. Still if you accumulate enough in can negate even the best primary source evidence the same way circumstantial evidence can outweigh eye-wittness testimony if there is enough of it to be conclusive.

Bibliographical testing:

This is by far the most scientific of the methods since it evaluates the veracity of the Bible as a document without regards to the content. Primary source documentation is just another expression for best source document. Primary source documentation for the Constitution would be the Constitution at the National Archives of course (I think thats where they keep it) . Any question about what was actually ratified into law would go back to what was actually written there and attested to by those present. The document itself can be examined objectivly without regard to content even though the standard is relative and proof is a long drawn out process. This is a look at the Bible as a document, or the books of the Bible as compared to other writtings from the same period. Conte Anyone with another catagory I'll be glad to give it a whirl. Lets try external for 100 Alex. Legal evidence often goes to motive I will quote here from the greatest legal mind in the history of U.S. common law. Since we are talking about evidence his insight into the evidence that supports the Christian wittness might be usefull. The following is an exact quote from Therefore Stand, by Wilbur Smith. This book is possibly the best book on Christian Apologetics ever written:

"We next turn to an American, not a philosopher but an authority in jurisprudence. I refer to Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853), who became the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same univer­sity, upon Story's death in 1846. It is recognized that "To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is to be ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States." sa Greenleaf's famous work, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, the first volume of which appeared in 1842, was "regarded as the foremost American authority," passing through edition after edition, is still con­sidered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure. Greenleaf, trained in weighing evidence, while still professor of Law at Harvard, wrote in 1846, a volume that immediately took its place as one of the most significant works on the truthfulness of the Christian religion of his day: An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice. The author devotes a number of pages to the consid­eration of the value of the testimony of the Apostles to the Resurrection of Christ and I trust that because the one who wrote these lines was the one who, by his legal works, was quoted thousands of times in the great court battles of our country, for three-quarters of a century, my readers will not be wearied if my quotation from his remarkable discus­sion of this evidence is extended to considerable length.
"The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discourage­ments, but in the face of the most appalling terrors that can be pre­sented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the- rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprison­ments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, re­joicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the rangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no Testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come. "Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irrec­oncilable with the fact, that they possessed the ordinary constitution of cur common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication."

   Becase the Holy Spirit tells us so:"The Spirit himself testifires with our spirit that we are sons of God"(Rom 8:16)

The book of Proverbs describes the virtuous woman (wife) in a way that suggests a pattern for me. I completed a study sometime ago where I compared some of the virtues described in Proverbs. Ruth and Esther are the examples I used but clearly these virtues are evident in other women in the Bible. I offer in here for anyone that might be interested in a topical study on the virtuous woman.
Proverbs 31:10-31
The first element is that ‘her husband trusts he with all he has.’ (vv.10-12) She is faithful. Second, she works diligently (vv. 13-19). I hope justification by faith don’t ever blind us to the merits of hard work. Thirdly, she has true compassion, (v.20). This is an element of godliness throughout the Bible. Fourth, her clothing is strength and honor (vv. 21-25). Compare to the clothing of the saints in Colossians 3:12-14, and the Bride in Revelations 19:7,8. Fifth, her words are full of wisdom and kindness. She is gracious and offers useful advice not criticism and scorn. Sixth, her family praises her (vv. 27-29). It’s interesting how profoundly important appreciation is. Finally, her beauty is not superficial it proceeds from the fear of the Lord (vv.30, 31). This element could be a study in godliness all by itself, but the fear of God is the primary emphasis throughout Proverbs.
Ruth and Naomi
Ruth demonstrates her faithfulness with a pledge to Naomi that is one of the most deeply moving pledges all of Scripture (Ruth 1:5-18). She works hard gleaning the fields to provide for herself and Naomi (2:2). She was moved with compassion at Naomi’s hardship (1:20,21). Ruth gets cleaned up, anointed, and dressed (3:3). Then she goes to the threshing floor seeking the kinsman redeemer (3:9-13).  Boaz redeems her finally, marrying her, making her and her family full members of the covenant of promise (4:7-12). The final chapter shows the genealogy of the royal line. This lady was King David’s great-grandmother (4:13-22).  
Esther
Ester obtains grace and favor from the king (Esther 2:16,17). Esther works for twelve months preparing her for her role as queen (2:12). Esther’s uncle Mordecai is in danger so she is moved with compassion and promises to speak to the king on his behalf (4:15-17). Esther puts on her royal robes and makes her husband proud at the 1st feast where she makes her début (5:1-8). She wisely waits for just the right moment to make her petition to the king (7:1-10). Her efforts save the Jews from what would have been a horrible slaughter (8:1-17). The poetic justice of Morenci’s enemy falling into the very trap he had laid has always been my favorite part of the book (Chapters. 9, 10).
The Early Church
   For anyone wondering if this is just a little history lesson, compare the virtues of the women above with the Church in Acts. Jesus entrusts the Gospel to the Church (Acts 1:4-8). They go straight to work upon receiving the promise (2:42-47). The lame man at the Temple goes from wretched to walking (3:3-7). They are covered in grace and power (4:33). They are told to continue teaching and proclaiming the Gospel (5:20). The fruits of their ministry are mature Spirit-filled ministers (6:3). The work continues where the church continues to build itself of in the faith as living members though the ministry of the Spirit (Eph. 2:19-22; 4:11-16).
            This brief exposition is boiled down from a much larger one, hope you like it.
 

You would seem to have come to some of the same convictions I have, Im concerned about division in the church because of denominational distinctives. "You are still worldly, Gor since there is jeasousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are youo not acting like mere men? For whin one says, 'I follow Paul" and another, 'I follow Apollos,' are you not mere men?" (ICor 3:3,4) Whenever Paul make practical exortations he emphasises the unity of faith. Its interesting that you mentioned Pentecost. The people that converted went to every point on the compass and the church in Rome was established very shortly after Pentecost. Paul was very aware of them was very serious about the fact that there is no difference. "For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building."            (Eph. 3:9).
I am well aquinted with the arguments that run throughout the church because of denominational distinctives. I'll take a good expositional study over all the arguments over semantics any day. Love builds up, knowledge puffs up.
                                                                     Grace and Peace

"Humility, the sweetest lovliest flower to grow in Eden,
  it was the first to die and has been seldom seen since.
  It is so deligate that it perishes if it but looks upon itself,
  And he who esteems it his, prove by that thought, he has it not'
                                                                      (Dickens)
One of the best ways Ive found to understand key principle in the Bible is to contrast it with the oppossite of it as its described, usually someplace close. Take for instance the contrast in James:
 "The brother in humble circumstances ought to take pride in his high position. But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower."
                                                                      (James 1:9,10)
   Its intersting that the word pride is used for both, its not highminded boasting that is in light here. It actually means to glory, in the original its 'kauchaomai' and is strongly contrasted with 'megalaucheo' which means 'megala'-great things. and 'aucheo'-to lift up the neck. The latter form traslated with the same word in English is used in (James 3:5) and is a kind of pride that stirs up envy and strife.
   The contrast here is subtle but there is a kind of pride that is happy to suffer humiliation with the expectation of being exalted. "Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God"
(Luke 6:20). "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already receied your comfort." (Luke 6:24).
    Heres another contrast:
  "...your earthly nature; sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desire, and greed, which is idolatry." (Colosians 3:5)
Then theres...
  "...clothe yourselfs with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience...And over all these virtues put on love which binds them all together in perfect unity." (Col. 3:12, 14)
  Isnt it interesting that humility and patience are contrasted with lust and greed?
   Heres what I think is the key to humility, "Submit to one another out of reverence (godly fear) for Christ" (Eph 5:21).
Which is the natural response to the Gospel.
   "Then I saw another angel flying in midair. and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth-to every nation, tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice. 'Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment had com, Worshim him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water." (Rev. 14:6,7)
   Contrasted in the next verse with:
" ...Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great, which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries." (Rev 14:

  Finally, "I pray also that the eyes of your heart may ne enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints." (Eph. 1:18). "Grace to all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with an undying love." (Eph 6:24)

I dont really remember what they all are. Total depravity, unlimited grace, limited atonement, predestination. Its been a while since I actually discussed calvinism, so count me in.