God behaving badly:
http://www.vision.org/
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ ~~
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPED
| |||
A FAIRLY URGENT/----->>>>> Q&R
| x |
No one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone. (James 1:13).
So where does temptation come from? JAS 1:17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. GOOD AND EVIL
problem of evil
problem of evil, problem in theology and the
philosophy of religion that arises for any view
that affirms the following three propositions: God is almighty, God is perfectly good, and evil exists.
The problem
An
important statement of the problem of evil was formulated by the Scottish
philosopher David Hume when he asked “Is [God] willing to
prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not
willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is
evil?” (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion; 1779). Since
well before Hume’s time, the problem has been the basis of a positive
argument for atheism: If God exists, then he is omnipotent and perfectly good; a
perfectly good being would eliminate evil as far as it could; there is no
limit to what an omnipotent being can do; therefore, if God exists, there
would be no evil in the world; there is evil in the world; therefore, God
does not exist. In this argument and in the problem of evil itself, evil is
understood to encompass both moral evil (caused by free human actions) and
natural evil (caused by natural phenomena such as disease, earthquakes, and floods).
Most
thinkers, however, have found this argument too simple, since it does not
recognize cases in which eliminating one evil causes another to arise or in
which the existence of a particular evil entails some good state of affairs
that morally outweighs it. Moreover, there may be logical limits to what an
omnipotent being can or cannot do. Most skeptics, therefore, have taken the
reality of evil as evidence that God’s existence is unlikely rather than
impossible. Often the reality of evil is treated as canceling out whatever
evidence there may be that God exists—e.g., as set forth in the argument from design, which is based on an analogy
between the apparent design discerned in the cosmos and the design involved
in human artifacts. Thus, Hume devotes much of the earlier parts of
his Dialogues to attacking the argument from design, which was popular in the 18th
century. In later parts of the work, he discusses the problem of evil and
concludes by arguing after all that the mixed evidence available supports
the existence of a divine designer of the world, but only one who is
morally neutral and not the God of traditional theistic religions.
Theistic responses
Religious
believers have had recourse to two main strategies. One approach is to
offer a theodicy, an account of why God chooses to permit evil
in the world (and why he is morally justified in so choosing)—e.g., that it
is a necessary consequence of sin or
that, as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz claimed, this is the “best of all possible worlds.” The other approach is to
attempt a more limited “defense,” which does not aim to explain God’s
purposes but merely to show that the existence of at least some evil in the
world is logically compatible with God’s goodness, power, and wisdom. Many
philosophers and theologians have rejected accounts of the first kind as
inherently implausible or as foolhardy attempts to go beyond the bounds of
human knowledge to discern God’s inscrutable purposes.
A
variety of arguments have been offered in response to the problem of evil,
and some of them have been used in both theodicies and defenses. One
argument, known as the free willdefense, claims that evil is caused not by God
but by human beings, who must be allowed to choose evil if they are to
have free will. This response presupposes that humans are
indeed free, and it fails to reckon with natural evil, except insofar as
the latter is increased by human factors such as greed or thoughtlessness.
Another argument, developed by the English philosopher Richard Swinburne, is that natural evils can be the
means of learning and maturing. Natural evils, in other words, can help
cultivate virtues such as courage and generosity by forcing humans to
confront danger, hardship, and need. Such arguments are commonly
supplemented by appeals to belief in a life after death, not just as reward
or compensation but as the state in which the point of human suffering and
the way in which God brings good out of evil will be made clear. Since many
theodicies seem limited (because one can easily imagine a better world), and
since many thinkers have not been convinced by the argument that the
reality of evil establishes atheism, it is likely that future discussions will
attempt to balance the reality of evil against evidence in favour of the
existence of God.
Problem of evil
In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who isomnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (see theism).[1][2] An argument from evil attempts to show that the co-existence of evil and such a deity is unlikely or impossible. Attempts to show the contrary have traditionally been discussed under the heading of theodicy.
A
wide range of responses have been given to the problem of evil. These
include the explanation that God's act of creation and God's act of
judgment are the same act.[3] God's condemnation of evil is believed
to be executed and expressed in his created world; a judgment that is
unstoppable due to God's all powerful, self-originated will; a constant and
eternal judgment that becomes announced and communicated to other people
on Judgment Day. In this explanation, God is viewed
as good because his judgment of evil is a good judgment. Other explanations
include the explanation of evil as the result of free will misused by God's
creatures, the view that our suffering is required for personal and spiritual
growth, and skepticism concerning the ability of humans to understand God's
reasons for permitting the existence of evil. The idea that evil comes from
a misuse of free will also might be incompatible of a deity which could
know all future events thereby eliminating our ability to 'do otherwise' in
any situation which eliminates the capacity for free will.
There
are also many discussions of evil and associated problems in other
philosophical fields, such as secular ethics,[4][5][6] and scientific disciplines such as evolutionary ethics.[7][8] But as usually understood, the
"problem of evil" is posed in a theological context.[1][2]
Contents
Detailed arguments
Numerous
versions of the problem of evil have been formulated.[1][2][9] These versions have included
philosophical, theological and Biblical formulations.
Logical problem of evil
The
originator of the logical problem of evil has been cited as the Greek
philosopher Epicurus,[10] and this argument may be schematized as
follows:
1. If an omnipotent,
omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the
world.
3. Therefore, an
omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god does not exist.
This
argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid if its premises are true,
the conclusion follows of necessity. However, as it is unclear precisely
how the existence of an all-powerful and perfectly good God guarantees the
non-existence of evil, it is unclear whether the first premise is true. To
show that it is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on this
premise, such as this modern example:[2]
1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient,
and omnibenevolent.
3. An omnibenevolent being
would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being
knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being has
the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every
way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that
evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the
existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an
omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical
contradiction).
Both
of these arguments are understood to be presenting the logical problem
of evil. They attempt to show that the assumed propositionslead to a logical contradiction and therefore cannot all be
correct. Most philosophical debate has focused on the propositions stating
that God cannot exist with, or would want to prevent, all evils (premises 3
and 6), with defenders of theism arguing that God could very well exist
with and allow evil in order to achieve a greater good.
One
greater good that has been proposed is that of free will, famously argued
for by Alvin Plantinga in
his free will defense.
The first part of this defense accounts for moral evil as the result of
free human action. The second part of this defense argues for the logical
possibility of "a mighty nonhuman spirit"[11] such as Satan who
is responsible for so-called "natural evils", including earthquakes, tidal
waves, and virulent diseases. Some philosophers accept that Plantinga
successfully solves the logical problem of evil,[12] as he appears to have shown that God
and evil are logically compatible, though others demur.[13][14]
Evidential problem of evil
William L. Rowe's famous example ofnatural evil: "In some distant forest
lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a
fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several
days before death relieves its suffering."[15]
The evidential version
of the problem of evil (also referred to as the probabilistic or inductive
version), seeks to show that the existence of evil, although logically
consistent with the existence of God, counts against or lowers the probability of the truth of theism. As an
example, a critic of Plantinga's idea of "a mighty nonhuman
spirit" causing natural evils may concede that the existence of such a
being is not logically impossible but argue that due to lacking scientific
evidence for its existence this is very unlikely and thus it is an
unconvincing explanation for the presence of natural evils.
A
version by William L. Rowe:
1. There exist instances of
intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have
prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil
equally bad or worse.
2. An omniscient, wholly
good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could,
unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or
permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
3. (Therefore) There does
not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.[2]
Another
by Paul Draper:
1. Gratuitous evils exist.
2. The hypothesis of
indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they
are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than
theism.
3. Therefore, evidence
prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.[16]
These
arguments are probability judgments since they rest on the claim that, even
after careful reflection, one can see no good reason for God’s permission
of evil. The inference from this claim to the
general statement that there exists unnecessary evil is inductive in nature and it is this inductive
step that sets the evidential argument apart from the logical argument.[2]
The
logical possibility of hidden or unknown reasons for the existence of evil
still exist. However, the existence of God is viewed as any large-scale
hypothesis or explanatory theory that aims to make sense of some pertinent
facts. The extent to which it fails to do so has not been confirmed.[2] According to Occam's razor, one should make as few assumptions
as possible. Hidden reasons are assumptions, as is the assumption that all
pertinent facts can be observed, or that facts and theories humans have not
discerned are indeed hidden. Thus, as per Draper's argument above, the
theory that there is an omniscient and omnipotent being who is indifferent
requires no hidden reasons in order to explain evil. It is thus a simpler
theory than one that also requires hidden reasons regarding evil in order
to include omnibenevolence. Similarly, for every hidden argument that
completely or partially justifies observed evils it is equally likely that
there is a hidden argument that actually makes the observed evils worse
than they appear without hidden arguments. As such, from a probabilistic
viewpoint hidden arguments will neutralize one another.[1]
Author
and researcher Gregory S. Paul offers
what he considers to be a particularly strong problem of evil. Paul
describes conservative calculations that at least 100 billion people have
been born throughout human history (starting roughly 50 000 years ago,
when Homo Sapiens—humans—first
appeared).[17] He then performed what he calls
"simple" calculations to estimate the historical death rate of
children throughout this time. He found that the historical death rate was
over 50%, and that the deaths of these children were mostly due to diseases
(like malaria).
Paul
thus sees it as a problem of evil, because this means, throughout human
history, over 50 billion people died naturally before they were old enough
to give mature consent. He adds that as many as 300 billion humans may
never have reached birth, instead dying naturally but prenatally (the
prenatal death rate being about 3/4 historically). Paul says that these
figures could have implications for calculating the population of a heaven
(which could include the aforementioned 50 billion children, 50 billion adults,
and roughly 300 billion fetuses—excluding any living today).[18][19]
A
common response to instances of the evidential problem is that there are
plausible (and not hidden) justifications for God’s permission of evil.
These theodicies are discussed
below.
Related arguments
Doctrines
of hell, particularly those involving eternal suffering, pose a particularly strong form
of the problem of evil (see problem of hell). If unbelief, incorrect
beliefs, or poor design are considered evils, then the argument from nonbelief, the argument
from inconsistent revelations, and the argument from poor design may
be seen as particular instances of the argument from evil.
Responses: defences and theodicies
Responses
to the problem of evil have sometimes been classified as defences or theodicies.
However, authors disagree on the exact definitions.[1][2][20] Generally, a defence may
refer to attempts to defuse the logical problem of evil by showing that
there is no logical incompatibility between the existence of evil and the
existence of God. This task does not require the identification of a plausible
explanation of evil, and is successful if the explanation provided shows
that the existence of God and the existence of evil are logically
compatible. It need not even be true, since a false though coherent
explanation would be sufficient to show logical compatibility.[21]
A theodicy,[22] on the other hand, is more ambitious,
since it attempts to provide a plausible justification—a morally sufficient
reason—for the existence of evil and thereby rebut the
"evidential" argument from evil.[2] Richard Swinburne maintains that it does
not make sense to assume there are greater goods that justify the evil's
presence in the world unless we know what they are—without knowledge of
what the greater goods could be, one cannot have a successful theodicy.[23] Thus, some authors see arguments
appealing to demons or the fall of man as indeed logically possible, but
not very plausible given our knowledge about the world,
and so see those arguments as providing defences but not good theodicies.[2]
Denial of omniscience, omnipotence,
omnibenevolence
If
God lacks any one of these qualities, the existence of evil is explicable,
and so the problem of evil will not be encountered.
In polytheism the individual deities are usually not
omnipotent or omnibenevolent. However, if one of the deities has these
properties the problem of evil applies. Belief systems where several
deities are omnipotent would lead to logical contradictions.
Ditheistic belief systems (a kind of dualism)
explain the problem of evil from the existence of two rival great, but not
omnipotent, deities that work in polar opposition to each other. Examples
of such belief systems include Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, and possibly Gnosticism. The Devil in
Islam and in Christianity is not seen as equal in power to God who is
omnipotent. Thus the Devil could only exist if so allowed by God. The
Devil, if so limited in power, can therefore by himself not explain the
problem of evil.
Process theology and open theism are other positions that limit
God's omnipotence and/or omniscience (as defined in traditional Christian theology).
Denial of omnibenevolence
Dystheism is the belief that God is not wholly
good. Pantheists and panentheists who are dystheistic may avoid the
problem of evil.
Greater good responses
The omnipotence paradoxes raise questions
as to the nature of God's omnipotence, with some solutions proposing that
omnipotence does not require the ability to actualize the logically
impossible. Greater good responses to the problem make use of this insight
by arguing for existence of goods of great value which God cannot actualize
without also permitting evil, and thus that there are evils he cannot be
expected to prevent despite being omnipotent. The most popular greater good
response appeals to free will.
Free will
The free will response asserts that the existence of
free beings is something of very high value, because with free will comes
the ability to make morally significant choices (which include the
expression of love and affection[24]). With it also comes the potential for
ethical abuse, as when we fail to act morally. But the disvalue created by such
abuse of free will is easily outweighed by the great value of free will and
the good that comes of it, and so God is justified in creating a world
which offers free will existence, and with it the potential for evil, over
a world with neither free beings nor evil. A world with free beings and no
evil would be still better, however this would require the cooperation of
free beings with God, as it is logically impossible for God to prevent
abuses of freedom without thereby curtailing that freedom.
Critics
of the free will response have questioned whether it historically accounts
for the degree of evil seen in this world. One point in this regard is that
while the value of free will may be thought sufficient to counterbalance
minor evils, it is less obvious that it outweighs the negative attributes
of evils such as rape and murder. Particularly egregious cases known as
horrendous evils, which "[constitute] prima facie reason to doubt whether the
participant’s life could (given their inclusion in it) be a great good to
him/her on the whole",[25] have been the focus of recent work in
the problem of evil. Another point is that those actions of free beings
which bring about evil very often diminish the freedom of those who suffer
the evil, for example, the murder of a young child (e.g. Death of Baby P) may prevent the child from
ever exercising their free will in a significant way. Given that in such a
case the freedom of an innocent child is pitted against the freedom of the
evil-doer, it is not clear why God would remain unresponsive and passive.
A
second criticism is that the potential for evil inherent in free will may
be limited by means which do not impinge on that free will. God could
accomplish this by making moral actions especially pleasurable, so that
they would be irresistible to us; he could also punish immoral actions
immediately, and make it obvious that moral rectitude is in our
self-interest; or he could allow bad moral decisions to be made, but
intervene to prevent the harmful consequences from actually happening. A
reply is that such a "toy world" would mean that free will has
less or no real value.[26] Critics may respond that this view
seems to imply it would be similarly wrong for humans to try to reduce
suffering in these ways, a position which few would advocate.[1] The debate depends on the definitions
of free will and determinism, which are deeply disputed definitions,
as well as their relation to one another. See also compatibilism and
incompatibilism, and predestination.
A
third reply is that though the free will defence has the potential to
explain moral evil, as described it fails to
address natural evils, such as
earthquakes, hurricanes and diseases. Advocates of the free will response
may advert to a different explanation of these natural evils, or extend the
free will response to account for them. As an example of the latter, Alvin Plantinga has famously suggested
that natural evils are caused by the free choices of supernatural beings
such as demons. Others have argued that natural evils are the
result of the fall of man, which corrupted the
perfect world created by God; or that natural laws which are prerequisite for the
existence of intelligent free beings;[27] or again that natural evils provide us
with a knowledge of evil which makes our free choices more significant than
they would otherwise be, and so our free will more valuable.[28] Lastly, it has been suggested that
natural evils are a mechanism of divine punishment for moral evils that
humans have committed, and so the natural evil is justified (see also Karma, just-world phenomenon, and original sin).
Finally,
because the free will response assumes a libertarian account of free will, the debate
over its adequacy naturally widens into a debate concerning the nature and
existence of free will. Compatibilists deny that a being who is
determined to act morally lacks free will, and so also that God cannot
ensure the moral behavior of the free beings he creates. Hard determinists deny the existence of
free will, and therefore they deny that the existence of free will
justifies the evil in our world. There is also debate regarding the
compatibility of moral free will (to select good or evil action) with the
absence of evil from heaven,[29][30] with God's omniscience (see the argument from free will), and with his
omnibenevolence.[9]
Soul-making or Irenaean theodicy
Main
article: Irenaean theodicy
Distinctive
of the soul-making theodicy is the claim that evil and suffering are necessary for spiritual growth.
Theology consistent with this type of theodicy was developed by the
second-century Christian theologian, Irenaeus of Lyons, and its most recent advocate has been
the influential philosopher of religion, John Hick. A perceived inadequacy with the theodicy
is that many evils do not seem to promote such growth, and can be positively
destructive of the human spirit. A second issue concerns the distribution
of evils suffered: were it true that God permitted evil in order to
facilitate spiritual growth, then we would expect evil to
disproportionately befall those in poor spiritual health. This does not
seem to be the case, as the decadent enjoy lives of luxury which insulate
them from evil, whereas many of the pious are poor, and are well acquainted
with worldly evils.[31] A third problem attending this theodicy
is that the qualities developed through experience with evil seem to be
useful precisely because they are useful in overcoming evil. But if there
were no evil, then there would seem to be no value in such qualities, and
consequently no need for God to permit evil in the first place. Against
this it may be asserted that the qualities developed are intrinsically
valuable, but this view would need further justification.
Afterlife
The afterlife has also been cited as justifying evil.
Christian theologian Randy Alcorn argues that the joys of heaven will
compensate for the sufferings on earth, and writes:
Without
this eternal perspective, we assume that people who die young, who have
handicaps, who suffer poor health, who don't get married or have children,
or who don't do this or that will miss out on the best life has to offer.
But the theology underlying these assumptions have a fatal flaw. It
presumes that our present Earth, bodies, culture, relationships and lives
are all there is... [but] Heaven will bring far more than compensation for
our present sufferings.[32]
Philosopher
Stephen Maitzen has called this the "Heaven Swamps Everything"
theodicy, and argues that it is false because it conflates compensation and
justification. He observes that this reasoning:
...may
stem from imagining an ecstatic or forgiving state of mind on the part of
the blissful: in heaven no one bears grudges, even the most horrific
earthly suffering is as nothing compared to infinite bliss, all past wrongs
are forgiven. But “are forgiven” doesn’t mean “were justified”; the
blissful person’s disinclination to dwell on his or her earthly suffering
doesn’t imply that a perfect being was justified in permitting the
suffering all along. By the same token, our ordinary moral practice
recognizes a legitimate complaint about child abuse even if, as adults, its
victims should happen to be on drugs that make them uninterested in
complaining. Even if heaven swamps everything, it doesn’t thereby justify
everything.[33]
Previous lives and karma
The
theory of karma holds that good acts result in pleasure and bad
acts with suffering. Thus it accepts that there is suffering in the world,
but maintains that there is no undeservedsuffering, and in that
sense, no evil. The obvious objection that people sometimes suffer
misfortune that was undeserved is met with by coupling karma with reincarnation, so that such suffering is the result
of actions in previous lifetimes.[34] The real problem of evil is the desire
to invert the law of karma by way of causing suffering to the innocent, and
rewarding pleasure to the guilty as superimposed rule.
Skeptical theism
Main
article: Skeptical theism
Skeptical
theists argue that due to humanity's limited knowledge, we cannot expect to
understand God or his ultimate plan. When a parent takes an infant to the
doctor for a regular vaccination to prevent childhood disease, it's because
the parent cares for and loves that child. The infant however will be
unable to appreciate this. It is argued that just as an infant cannot
possibly understand the motives of its parent due to its cognitive
limitations, so too are humans unable to comprehend God's will in their
current physical and earthly state.[35]Given this view, the difficulty or
impossibility of finding a plausible explanation for evil in a world
created by God is to be expected, and so the argument from evil is assumed
to fail unless it can be proven that God's reasons would be comprehensible
to us.[36] A related response is that good and
evil are strictly beyond human comprehension. Since our concepts of good
and evil as instilled in us by God are only intended to facilitate ethical
behaviour in our relations with other humans, we should have no expectation
that our concepts are accurate beyond what is needed to fulfill this
function, and therefore cannot presume that they are sufficient to
determine whether what we call evil really is evil. Such a view may be
independently attractive to the theist, as it permits an agreeable
interpretation of certain biblical passages, such as "...Who makes
peace and creates evil; I am the Lord, Who makes all these."[37]
A
counterpoint to the above is that while these considerations harmonize
belief in God with our inability to identify his reasons for permitting
evil, there remains a question as to why we have not been given a clear and
unambiguous assurance by God that he has good reasons for allowing evil,
which would be within our ability to understand. Here discussion of the
problem of evil shades into discussion of the argument from nonbelief.
Denial of the existence of evil
Evil as the absence of good
Main
article: Absence of good
The
fifth century theologian Augustine of Hippo maintained that evil
exists only as a privation or absence of the good. Ignorance is an evil,
but is merely the absence of knowledge, which is good; disease is the
absence of health; callousness an absence of compassion. Since evil has no
positive reality of its own, it cannot be caused to exist, and so God
cannot be held responsible for causing it to exist. In its strongest form,
this view may identify evil as an absence of God, who is the sole source of
that which is good.
A
related view, which draws on the Taoist concept
of yin-yang, allows that both evil and good have positive
reality, but maintains that they are complementary opposites, where the
existence of each is dependant on the existence of the other. Compassion, a
valuable virtue, can only exist if there is suffering; bravery only exists
if we sometimes face danger; self-sacrifice is called for only where others
are in need. This is sometimes called the "contrast" argument.[38]
Perhaps
the most important criticism of this view is that, even granting its
success against the argument from evil, it does nothing to undermine an
'argument from the absence of goodness' which may be pushed instead, and so
the response is only superficially successful.[39][40]
Evil as illusory
It
is possible to hold that evils such as suffering and disease are mere
illusions, and that we are mistaken about the existence of evil. This
approach is favored by some Eastern religious philosophies such
as Hinduism and Buddhism, and by Christian Science. It is most plausible when
considering our knowledge of evils which are geographically or temporally
distant, for these might not be real after all. However, when considering
our own sensations of pain and mental anguish, there does not seem to be a
difference in apprehending that we are afflicted by such sensations and
suffering under their influence. If that is the case, it seems that not all
evils can be dismissed as illusory.[39][41]
Turning the tables
"Evil" suggests an ethical law
A
different approach to the problem of evil is to turn the tables by
suggesting that any argument from evil is self-refuting, in that its
conclusion would necessitate the falsity of one of its premises. One
response then is to point out that the assertion "evil exists"
implies an ethical standard against which moral value is determined, and
then to argue that this standard implies the existence of God (see argument from morality). C. S. Lewis
writes:
My
argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But
how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line
crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing
this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course I could have given
up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my
own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the
argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it
did not happen to please my fancies.[42]
The
standard criticism of this view is that an argument from evil is not
necessarily a presentation of the views of its proponent, but is instead
intended to show how premises which the theist is inclined to believe lead
him or her to the conclusion that God does not exist (i.e. as a reductio of the theist's worldview).
Another tact is to reformulate the argument from evil so that this
criticism does not apply—for example, by replacing the term
"evil" with "suffering", or what is more cumbersome,
state of affairs that orthodox theists would agree are properly called
"evil".[43]
General criticisms of defenses and
theodicies
Several
philosophers[44][45] have argued that just as there exists a
problem of evil for theists who believe in an omniscient, omnipotent and
omnibenevolent being, so too is there a problem of good for anyone who
believes in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnimalevolent (or perfectly
evil) being. As it appears that the defenses and theodicies which might
allow the theist to resist the problem of evil can be inverted and used to
defend belief in the omnimalevolent being, this suggests that we should
draw similar conclusions about the success of these defensive strategies.
In that case, the theist appears to face a dilemma: either to accept that
both sets of responses are equally bad, and so that the theist does not
have an adequate response to the problem of evil; or to accept that both
sets of responses are equally good, and so to commit to the existence of an
omnipotent, omniscient, and omnimalevolent being as plausible. Critics have
noted that theodicies and defenses are often addressed to the logical
problem of evil. As such, they are intended only to demonstrate that it
is possible that evil can co-exist with an omniscient,
omnipotent and omnibenevolent being. Since the relevant parallel commitment
is only that good can co-exist with an omniscient, omnipotent and
omnimalevolent being, not that it is plausible that they should do so, the
theist who is responding to the problem of evil need not be committing
themselves to something they are likely to think is false.[46] This reply, however, leaves the
evidential problem of evil untouched.
Another
general criticism is that though a theodicy may harmonize God with the
existence of evil, it does so at the cost of nullifying morality. This is
because most theodicies assume that whatever evil there is exists because
it is required for the sake of some greater good. But if an evil is
necessary because it secures a greater good, then it appears we humans have
no duty to prevent it, for in doing so we would also prevent the greater
good for which the evil is required. Even worse, it seems that any action
can be rationalized, as if one succeeds in performing it, then God has
permitted it, and so it must be for the greater good. From this line of
thought one may conclude that, as these conclusions violate our basic moral
intuitions, no greater good theodicy is true, and God does not exist.
Alternatively, one may point out that greater good theodicies lead us to
see every conceivable state of affairs as compatible with the existence of God,
and in that case the notion of God's goodness is rendered meaningless.[47] [48][49][50]
By religion
Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt
The
problem of evil takes at least four formulations in ancient Mesopotamian religious thought, as in the extant
manuscripts of Ludlul bēl nēmeqi (I
Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom), Erra and Ishum, The
Babylonian Theodicy, and The Dialogue of Pessimism.[51] In this type of polytheistic context,
the chaotic nature of the world implies multiple gods battling for control.
In ancient Egypt, it was thought the problem takes
at least two formulations, as in the extant manuscripts of Dialogue
of a Man with His Ba and The Eloquent Peasant. Due to the
conception of Egyptian gods as being far removed, these two formulations of
the problem focus heavily on the relation between evil and people; that is,
moral evil.[52]
Judaism
The Hebrew Bible
A
verse in the Book of Isaiah is
translated in the King James Bible as "I form the
light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do
all these things" (45:7). The Hebrew word for evil is ra`/רַע, a word
that occurs 663 times in the Hebrew Bible.[53] Evil (ra`/רַע) is a generic term for
something considered bad in either a physical or moral sense.[54] TheKing James Bible translates the Hebrew
(ra`/רַע) as evil 442 times and by other words including wickedness, hurt,
trouble, and affliction.
The Book of Job is one of the most widely known
formulations in Western thought questioning why suffering exists.
Originally written in Hebrew as an epic poem, the story centers on Job, a
perfectly just and righteous person. He makes no serious errors in life and
strives to do nothing wrong; as a result he is very successful. A character
described only as the 'Accuser'challenges God, claiming that Job
is only righteous because God has rewarded him with a good life. The
Accuser proposes that if God were to allow everything Job loved to be
destroyed, Job would then cease to be righteous. God allows the Accuser to
destroy Job's wealth and children, and to strike him with sickness and
boils. Job discusses his condition with three friends. His three friends
insist that God never allows bad things to happen to good people, and
assert that Job must have done something to deserve his punishment. Job
responds that is not the case and that he would be willing to defend
himself to God. A fourth friend, Elihu, arrives and criticizes all of them.
Elihu states that God is perfectly just and good. God then responds to Job
in a speech delivered from "out of a whirlwind", explaining the
universe from the scope of God's perspective and demonstrating that the
workings of the world are beyond human understanding. In the end God states
that the three friends were incorrect, and that Job was incorrect for
assuming he could question God. God more than restores Job's prior health,
wealth, and gives him new children, as though he has been awakened from a
nightmare into a new awareness of spiritual reality. The ultimate purpose
of the story is a matter of much debate.
Professor
of Religious Studies Bart D. Ehrman argues that different parts
of the Bible give different answers. One example is evil as punishment for
sin or as a consequence of sin. Ehrman writes that this seems to be based
on some notion of free will although this argument is never explicitly
mentioned in the Bible. Another argument is that suffering ultimately
achieves a greater good, possibly for persons other than the sufferer, that
would not have been possible otherwise. The Book of Job offers two answers:
suffering is a test, and you will be rewarded later for passing it; another
that God is not held accountable to human conceptions of morality. Ecclesiastes sees suffering as beyond human
abilities to comprehend.[55]
Later Jewish interpretations
See
also: Holocaust theology
An
oral tradition exists in Judaism that God determined the time of the Messiah's
coming by erecting a great set of scales. On one side, God placed the
captive Messiah with the souls of dead laymen. On the other side, God
placed sorrow, tears, and the souls of righteous martyrs. God then declared
that the Messiah would appear on earth when the scale was balanced.
According to this tradition, then, evil is necessary in the bringing of the
world's redemption, as sufferings reside on the scale.[citation needed]
The
Talmud states that every bad thing is for the ultimate good, and a person
should praise God for bad things like he praises God for the good things.[citation needed]
Tzimtzum in Kabbalistic thought holds that God has withdrawn
himself so that creation could exist, but that this withdrawal means that
creation lacks full exposure to God's all-good nature.[citation needed]
Christianity
Gnosticism
Gnosticism refers to several beliefs seeing evil
as due to the world being created by an imperfect God, the demiurge and is contrasted with a superior entity.
However, this by itself does not answer the problem of evil if the superior
entity is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Different gnostic beliefs may give
varying answers, like Manichaeism, which adopts dualism, in opposition to
the doctrine of omnipotence.
Irenaean theodicy
Irenaean theodicy, posited by Irenaeus (2nd century AD–c. 202), has been
reformulated by John Hick. It holds that one cannot
achieve moral goodness or love for God if there is no evil and suffering in
the world. Evil is soul-making and leads one to be truly moral and
close to God. God created an epistemic distance (such that God is not
immediately knowable) so that we may strive to know him and by doing so
become truly good. Evil is a means to good for 3 main reasons:
1. Means
of knowledge Hunger
leads to pain, and causes a desire to feed. Knowledge of pain prompts
humans to seek to help others in pain.
2. Character
Building Evil
offers the opportunity to grow morally. “We would never learn the art of
goodness in a world designed as a hedonistic paradise” (Richard
Swinburne)
3. Predictable
Environment The
world runs to a series of natural laws. These are independent of any
inhabitants of the universe. Natural Evil only occurs when these natural
laws conflict with our own perceived needs. This is not immoral in any way
Pelagianism
The
consequences of the original sin were debated
by Pelagius and Augustine of Hippo. Pelagius argues on
behalf of original innocence, while Augustine indicts Eve and Adam for
original sin. Pelagianism is the belief that
original sin did not taint all of humanity and that mortal free will is
capable of choosing good or evil without divine aid. Augustine's position,
and subsequently that of much of Christianity, was that Adam and Eve had
the power to topple God's perfect order, thus changing nature by bringing
sin into the world, but that the advent of sin then limited mankind's power
thereafter to evade the consequences without divine aid.[56] Eastern Orthodox theology holds
that one inherits the nature of sinfulness but not Adam and Eve's guilt for
their sin which resulted in the fall.[57]
Augustinian Theodicy
St Augustine of Hippo (AD 354–430) in
his Augustinian theodicy, as
presented in John Hick's book Evil and the God of Love, focuses
on the Genesis story that essentially dictates that God created the world
and that it was good; evil is merely a consequence of the fall of man (The story of the Garden
of Eden where Adam and Eve disobeyed God and caused inherent sin for man).
Augustine stated that natural evil (evil present in the natural world
such as natural disasters etc.) is caused by fallen angels, whereas moral evil (evil caused by the will of human
beings) is as a result of man having become estranged from God and choosing
to deviate from his chosen path. Augustine argued that God could not have
created evil in the world, as it was created good, and that all notions of
evil are simply a deviation or privation of goodness. Evil cannot be a
separate and unique substance. For example, Blindness is not a separate
entity, but is merely a lack or privation of sight. Thus the Augustinian
theodicist would argue that the problem of evil and suffering is void
because God did not create evil; it was man who chose to deviate from the
path of perfect goodness.
This,
however, poses a number of questions involving genetics: if evil is merely a consequence of our
choosing to deviate from God's desired goodness, then genetic disposition
of 'evil' must surely be in God's plan and desire and thus cannot be blamed
on Man. Regarding the relative placement of Augustinian theodicy, John Hick
in the book Encountering Evil has stated that, "It is
(an) extended discussion that constitutes my answer to the question whether
an Irenaean theodicy, with its eschatology, may not be as implausible as an
Augustinian theodicy, with its human or angelic fall. (If it is, then the
latter is doubly implausible; for it also involves an eschatology!)"[58]
St. Thomas Aquinas
Saint
Thomas systematized the Augustinian conception of evil, supplementing it
with his own musings. Evil, according to St. Thomas, is a privation, or the
absence of some good which belongs properly to the nature of the creature.[59] There is therefore no positive source of
evil, corresponding to the greater good, which is God;[60] evil being not real but rational—i.e.
it exists not as an objective fact, but as a subjective conception; things
are evil not in themselves, but by reason of their relation to other things
or persons. All realities are in themselves good; they produce bad results
only incidentally; and consequently the ultimate cause of evil is
fundamentally good, as well as the objects in which evil is found.[61]
Catholic Encyclopedia
Evil
is threefold, viz., metaphysical evil, moral, and physical, the retributive
consequence of moral guilt. Its existence subserves the perfection of the
whole; the universe would be less perfect if it contained no evil. Thus
fire could not exist without the corruption of what it consumes; the lion
must slay the ass in order to live, and if there were no wrong doing, there
would be no sphere for patience and justice. God is said (as in Isaiah 45)
to be the author of evil in the sense that the corruption of material
objects in nature is ordained by Him, as a means for carrying out the
design of the universe; and on the other hand, the evil which exists as a
consequence of the breach of Divine laws is in the same sense due to Divine
appointment; the universe would be less perfect if its laws could be broken
with impunity. Thus evil, in one aspect, i.e. as counter-balancing the
deordination of sin, has the nature of good. But the evil of sin, though
permitted by God, is in no sense due to him; denying the Divine
omnipotence, that another equally perfect universe could not be created in
which evil would have no place.[62]
Luther and Calvin
Both Luther and Calvin explained evil as a consequence of
the fall of man and the original sin. However, due to the belief in predestination and omnipotence, the fall is
part of God's plan. Ultimately humans may not be able to understand and
explain this plan.[63]
Christian Science
See
also: Christian Science#Evil
Christian Science views evil as having
no ultimate reality and as being due to false beliefs, consciously or
unconsciously held. Evils such as illness and death may be banished by
correct understanding. This view has been questioned, aside from the
general criticisms of the concept of evil as an illusion discussed earlier,
since the presumably correct understanding by Christian Science members,
including the founder, has not prevented illness and death.[41] However, Christian Scientists believe
that the many instances of spiritual healing (as recounted e.g. in the
Christian Science periodicals and in the textbook Science and Health with
Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy) are anecdotal evidence of the correctness
of the teaching of the unreality of evil.[64] According to one author, the denial by
Christian Scientists that evil ultimately exists neatly solves the problem
of evil; however, most people cannot accept that solution[65]
Jehovah's Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Satan is
the original cause of evil.[66] Though once a perfect angel, Satan
developed feelings of self-importance and craved worship, and eventually
challenged God's right to rule. Satan caused Adam and Eve to disobey God, and humanity
subsequently became participants in a challenge involving the competing
claims of Jehovah and Satan to universal sovereignty.[67] Other angels who sided with Satan
became demons.
God's
subsequent tolerance of evil is explained in part by the value of free
will. But Jehovah's Witnesses also hold that this period of suffering is
one of non-interference from God, which serves to demonstrate that Jehovah's
"right to rule" is both correct and in the best interests of all
intelligent beings, settling the "issue of universal
sovereignty". Further, it gives individual humans the opportunity to
show their willingness to submit to God's rulership.
At
some future time known to him, God will consider his right to universal
sovereignty to have been settled for all time. The reconciliation of
"faithful" humankind will have been accomplished
through Christ, and nonconforming humans and demons will have been
destroyed. Thereafter, evil (any failure to submit to God's rulership) will
be summarily executed.[68]
Islam
Islamic scholar Sherman Jackson states that the Mu'tazila school emphasized God's
omnibenevolence. Evil arises not from God but from the actions of his
creations who create their own actions independent of God. The Ash'ari school instead emphasized God's
omnipotence. God is not restricted to follow some objective moral system
centered on humans but has the power do whatever he wants with his world.
The Maturidi school argued that evil arises from God
but that evil in the end has a wiser purpose as a whole and for the future.
Some theologians have viewed God as all-powerful and human life as being
between the hope that God will be merciful and the fear that he will not.[69]
Hinduism
Main
article: Problem of evil in
Hinduism
Hinduism is a complex religion with many different
currents or schools. As such the problem of evil in Hinduism is
answered in several different ways such as by the concept of karma.
Buddhism
In Buddhism, the problem of evil, or the related problem
of dukkha, is one argument against a benevolent, omnipotent
creator god, identifying such a notion as attachment to
a false concept.[70]
By philosophers
Epicurus
Epicurus is generally credited with first
expounding the problem of evil, and it is sometimes called "the
Epicurean paradox" or "the riddle of Epicurus":
"Is
God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he
able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him
God?" - 'the Epicurean paradox'.[71]
Epicurus
himself did not leave any written form of this argument. It can be found in
Christian theologian Lactantius's Treatise on the
Anger of God where Lactantius critiques the argument. Epicurus's
argument as presented by Lactantius actually argues that a god that is
all-powerful and all-good does not exist and that the gods are distant and
uninvolved with man's concerns. The gods are neither our friends nor
enemies.
David Hume
David Hume's formulation of the problem of evil
in Dialogues
Concerning Natural Religion:
"Is
he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he
able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing?
whence then is evil?"[72]
"[God's]
power we allow [is] infinite: Whatever he wills is executed: But neither
man nor any other animal are happy: Therefore he does not will their
happiness. His wisdom is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the
means to any end: But the course of nature tends not to human or animal
felicity: Therefore it is not established for that purpose. Through the
whole compass of human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and
infallible than these. In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy
resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?"
Gottfried
Leibniz
Gottfried Leibniz
In
his Dictionnaire
Historique et Critique, the sceptic Pierre Bayle denied the goodness and omnipotence
of God on account of the sufferings experienced in this earthly life. Gottfried Leibniz introduced the term
theodicy in his 1710 work Essais
de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du
mal ("Theodicic Essays on the Benevolence of God, the
Free will of man, and the Origin of Evil") which was directed mainly
against Bayle. He argued that this is the best of all possible
worlds that God could have created.
Imitating
the example of Leibniz, other philosophers also called their treatises on
the problem of evil theodicies. Voltaire's popular novel Candide mocked
Leibnizian optimism through the fictional tale of a naive youth.
Thomas Robert Malthus
The
population and economic theorist Thomas Malthus argued that evil exists to
spur human creativity and production. Without evil or the necessity of
strife mankind would have remained in a savage state since all amenities
would be provided for.[73]
Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant argued for sceptical theism.
He claimed there is a reason all possible theodicies must fail: evil is a
personal challenge to every human being and can be overcome only by faith.[74] He wrote:[75]
We
can understand the necessary limits of our reflections on the subjects
which are beyond our reach. This can easily be demonstrated and will put an
end once and for all to the trial.
Victor Cousin
Victor Cousin argued for a form of eclecticism to organize and develop
philosophical thought. He believed that the Christian idea of God was very
similar to the Platonic concept of "the Good", in that God
represented the principle behind all other principles. Like the ideal of
Good, Cousin also believed the ideal of Truth and of Beauty were analogous
to the position of God, in that they were principles of principles. Using
this way of framing the issue, Cousin stridently argued that different
competing philosophical ideologies all had some claim on truth, as they all
had arisen in defense of some truth. He however argued that there was a
theodicy which united them, and that one should be free in quoting
competing and sometimes contradictory ideologies in order to gain a greater
understanding of truth through their reconciliation.[76]
Peter Kreeft
Christian
philosopher Peter Kreeft provides several
answers to the problem of evil and suffering, including that a) God may use short-term
evils for long-range goods, b) God created the possibility of evil, but not
the evil itself, and that free will was necessary for the highest good of
real love. Kreeft says that being all-powerful doesn't mean being able to
do what is logically contradictory, e.g., giving freedom with no
potentiality for sin, c) God's own suffering and death on the cross brought
about his supreme triumph over the devil, d) God uses suffering to bring
about moral character, quoting apostle Paul in Romans 5, e) Suffering can
bring people closer to God, and f) The ultimate "answer" to
suffering is Jesus himself, who, more than any explanation, is our real need.[77]
William Hatcher
Mathematical
logician William Hatcher (a member
of the Baha'i Faith) made use of
relational logic to claim that very simple models of moral value cannot be
consistent with the premise of evil as an absolute, whereas goodness as an
absolute is entirely consistent with the other postulates concerning moral
value.[78] In Hatcher's view, one can only validly
say that if an act A is "less good" than an act B, one cannot
logically commit to saying that A is absolutely evil, unless one is
prepared to abandon other more reasonable principles.
|
Is there any info in the Bible as to why The Lord God allows the evil one such freedom to create such enormous trouble and evil in our world..does this suggest that from the original conflict in heaven when lucifer was expelled that the evil one secured something in the way of a concession?? Many years past a book was written named The Great Controversy which attempted an explanation...l did read it but cant remember much of its content
Shalom Max McCann
~~
~~
GOOD AND EVIL
The line between good and evil runs through the life of every (human being) ~ Dostoievsky ?
Three of the best human beings I've ever known were married - until death parted them - to very angry men. How did those women get to be like that?
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot: were they born or made like that? What drives the sniper/s in Syria to shoot women in the pelvic area one day, and the left breast the next and the right breast the day after, according to a British medical volunteer quoted in the world's press last week?
One Monday morning a distressed and battered woman in her 30s came to see me. She'd just been released - again - from hospital. 'I guess I can cope with being treated like this - even the broken bones,' she said, 'but it's not fair for my two kids. They're getting more and more frightened...' 'So what do you want to do?' I asked. 'I'm leaving, but I have nowhere to go.' 'Do you want me to find a safe place?' One phone call and it was arranged, to begin that night. The following week I heard that her husband planned to come after me with a gun. Sometimes it's not even safe being a pastor!
~~
Every culture contains good
and bad elements. Every language has different concepts about what is
right and wrong.
Consider:
Cruelty and wrong are not the greatest forces in the
world. There is nothing eternal in them. Only love is eternal. ~~
Elizabeth Elliot
The line separating good and evil passes not through
states, nor between classes nor between parties either - but right through the
human heart. ~~ Alexandr Solzhenitzyn
I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love
will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated,
is stronger than evil triumphant. ~~ Martin Luther King Jr
There is no good and evil, there is only power and
those too weak to seek it. ~~J.
K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is
that good people do nothing~~ Edmund
Burke
~~
è Three
of the best, most serene human beings I've ever known were married - until
death parted them - to very angry men. How did those women get to be like that?
è During
the last quarter-century Nelson Mandela was the world’s most admired human being. How
did he get to be like that? (Clue: 'Resentment is like drinking poison
and then hoping it will kill your enemies').
One Monday morning a distressed and battered woman in her 30s came to see me.
She'd just been released - again - from hospital.
'I guess I can cope with
being treated like this - even the broken bones,' she said, 'but it's not fair
for my two kids. They're becoming more and more frightened...'
'So what do you want to
do?' I asked.
'I'm leaving, but I have
nowhere to go.'
'Do you want me to find a
safe place?'
One phone call and it was
arranged, to begin that night. The following week I heard that her psychotic
husband planned to come after me with a gun. Sometimes it's not even safe being
a pastor!
~~
Born or made?
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot,
pedophile priests… : were they born or made like that? (Stalin: ‘One death is a
tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic’).
What drives the sniper/s in
Syria to shoot women in the pelvic area one day, and the left breast the next
and the right breast the day after, according to a British medical volunteer?
(Today I read of Egyptian snipers who aim at strangers’ eyes).
I grew up during the Second
World War, when our world was mostly divided into ‘Allies’ and ‘Others’. We
boys played ‘Aussies and Japs’, ‘goodies and baddies’, ‘cops and robbers’… At
our primary school there were bullies and ‘sissies’, and once a year Santa
Claus sorted out who was naughty and nice. In our little church we were ‘good’
(= ‘saved’); others might be good too but because they were not ‘of us’ their
eternal destiny was decidedly suspect. But then, I wondered, why were there
sometimes very heated arguments in our little Christian ‘Assembly’ over some
issues? Two of our elders had a stand-up row in everyone’s hearing about
whether we should play a radio ‘in church’ (one of them argued that as Satan
was ‘the prince of the power of the air’ radio-waves were contaminated with
evil)…
Ă Which – if any – of
these boxes would you tick? :
All are born good
(Confucius) [ ]
We are all contaminated
with ‘original sin’; so sin corrupts the entire human nature (Augustine)
[ ]
People are able to choose
not to sin (Pelagius) [ ]
Whoever is without sin may
cast the first stone (Jesus, John 8:7). All have sinned and fallen short of the
glory of God (Paul, Romans 3:23) [ ]
‘In spite of everything, I
still believe that people are really good at heart’ (Anne Frank, German-born
diarist and Holocaust victim) [ ]
‘The sad truth is that most
evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil’
(Hannah Arendt, German-Jewish political philosopher) [ ]
‘The line between good and
evil is permeable and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured
by situational forces’ (Philip Zimbardo). [ ]
World War II criminal
Adolph Eichmann said he was simply following instructions when he ordered the
deaths of millions of Jews. Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram asked
himself how common that attitude might be? He devised a classic experiment
where 40 participants were asked/ordered to progressively increase electric
shocks from 15 to 450 volts to an unseen (but vocal) victim. How many went all
the way? A sample of students guessed '3%.' The actual number? 26 of the 40!
Only 14 stopped earlier. Other research on obedience has corroborated these results.
Scary! [http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm ]
And God…?
What is good? What is evil?
The world is not dangerous
because of those who do harm, but because of those who look at it without doing
anything. ~~ Albert Einstein
2. The Power of One: You, yes you, can make a difference.
(Faith)
History – and legend – is
replete with stories about sometimes ordinary individuals who were overwhelmed
with a desire to rectify a wrong, and, against all odds, defeated evil.
(Sangster – did all England wake up? Wilberforce etc. See articles Power of
One).
3. I’m not on my own: ‘I
can do all things, through Christ, who strengthens me’.
By doing good we become
good ~~ Jean-Jacques Rousseau
~~John Wesley
Watch your thoughts, for
they become words. Watch your words, for they become actions. Watch your
actions, for they become habits. Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
~~ Unknown
You’ve heard this widely-quoted wisdom by a Native
American elder: ‘Inside of me there are two dogs. One of the dogs is mean and
evil. The other dog is good. The mean dog fights the good dog all the time.’
When asked which dog wins, he replied, ‘The one I feed the most.’
Finally, a daily prayer to
help you conquer evil and be committed to goodness:
John Stott's Morning
Trinitarian Prayer
Good morning heavenly Father,
Good morning Holy Spirit.
Lord Jesus, I worship you, Saviour and Lord of the world.
Holy Spirit, I worship you, sanctifier of the people of God.
- John
Stott. There are variations of this prayer in books by and about John Stott.
This version is from Basic Christian: The Inside Story of John Stott.
~~
Simone Weil: In Spain, during the civil war, she threw herself into the hellish torment of the worst of humanity: 'I breathed the smell of blood and terror.' It was here she witnessed the appalling extent to which humanity can act with violence. 'If men know they can kill without blame or punishment, they kill. Or encourage the killers with approving smiles. The purpose of the struggle is lost...' The Melbourne Anglican, April 2004, p. 23
This essay comprises the
gist of The Problem of Pain by C.S.Lewis. This apologetic
classic ought to be read alongside Lewis’ later work, A Grief Observed [1].
The first book was written from his head, the second from his heart (after his
wife died). Make sure you see the film/video about C S Lewis and Joy Davidman –Shadowlands. The
Problem of Pain has some brilliant insights. This paper will provide a
good basis for an adult group discussion.
One Monday morning a distressed and battered woman in her 30s came to see me. She'd just been released - again - from hospital.
~~John Wesley
~~ Unknown
Good morning Holy Spirit.
Lord Jesus, I worship you, Saviour and Lord of the world.
Holy Spirit, I worship you, sanctifier of the people of God.
- John
Stott. There are variations of this prayer in books by and about John Stott.
This version is from Basic Christian: The Inside Story of John Stott.
~~
Simone Weil: In Spain, during the civil war, she threw herself into the hellish torment of the worst of humanity: 'I breathed the smell of blood and terror.' It was here she witnessed the appalling extent to which humanity can act with violence. 'If men know they can kill without blame or punishment, they kill. Or encourage the killers with approving smiles. The purpose of the struggle is lost...' The Melbourne Anglican, April 2004, p. 23
This essay comprises the
gist of The Problem of Pain by C.S.Lewis. This apologetic
classic ought to be read alongside Lewis’ later work, A Grief Observed [1].
The first book was written from his head, the second from his heart (after his
wife died). Make sure you see the film/video about C S Lewis and Joy Davidman –Shadowlands. The
Problem of Pain has some brilliant insights. This paper will provide a
good basis for an adult group discussion.
…..
‘If God were good, he would
wish to make his creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty he would
be able to do as he wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God
lacks either goodness, or power, or both.’
These creatures cause pain
be being born, live by inflicting pain, and in pain they mostly die. Why?
And however did human
beings attribute the universe to the activity of a wise and good Creator? All
of the great religions were first preached, and long practised, in a world
without chloroform! Christianity, in a sense, creates the ‘problem of pain’ by
postulating that ultimate reality is righteous and loving.
IS GOD ALL-POWERFUL?
The Bible asserts that
‘with God all things are possible’. This must tacitly exclude, of course, the
intrinsically impossible – you may attribute miracles to God, but not nonsense.
In God’s universe there are physical and moral laws, which may operate
beneficially for some but not for others: water which is ‘beautifully hot’ to a
Japanese adult in a Sento bath will burn a small child. Morally, because wrong
actions result where free wills operate, the possibility of suffering is
inevitable. God does not violate the aggressive person’s will to strike the
innocent.
IS HE ALL-LOVING?
When Christians say that
‘God is Love’, what do they mean? Is he a senile benevolence who wishes you to
be happy in your own way? A disinterested cosmic magistrate? Or a mere
‘heavenly host’ who feels responsible for the comfort of his guests? No, no and
no. To ask that God’s love should be content with us as we are is to ask that
God should cease to be God. Because his love is a ‘consuming fire’ he must
labour to make us truly lovable, and when we are such as he can love without
impediment, only then shall we in fact be truly happy. Nor is God’s love
selfishly possessive, like that of an immature parent. He who lacks nothing
chooses to need us, but only because we need to be needed. His commands to
worship and obey him marshall us towards our most utter ‘good’ if only we knew
it. Thus there are only three real alternatives: to be God; to be like God and
to share his goodness in creaturely response; and to be miserable.
IS PAIN OUR FAULT?
Because some psychoanalysts
have explained away the old Christian sense of sin, God easily seems to us to
be impossibly demanding, or else inexplicably angry. To our resentful
consciousness the ‘wrath’ of God seems a barbarous doctrine. Occasionally we
might admit our guilt, or perhaps blame ‘the system’, or hope that time will
heal our past misdemeanours. But the fact and guilt of sin are not erased by
time, but by contrite repentance and the blood of Christ. God’s road to the
Promised Land runs first past Sinai, and then Calvary. We are creatures whose
basic character is a horror to God, as it is, when we really see it, a horror
to ourselves.
We humans have deliberately
abused our free-will, one of God’s best gifts to us. And we are not getting any
better – not even the animals treat other creatures as badly as humans
sometimes treat other humans. From the moment a creature becomes aware of God
as God, and of itself as self, there is the danger of self-idolatry, pride. But
God has the antidote: he saw the crucufixion of his Son in the act of creating
the first nebulae. God himself assumes the suffering nature which evil
produces, and offers forgiveness, and life in Christ.
‘UNDESERVED’ HUMAN PAIN:
Probably four-fifths of all
human suffering derives from our misusing nature, or hurting other people. We,
not God, have produced racks, whips, prisons, guns and bombs. It is by human
avarice and stupidity that we suffer all of our ‘social’ evils.
Because we are rebels
against God who must lay down our arms, our other pains may indeed constitute
God’s megaphone to rouse a deaf world to surrender. There is a universal
feeling that bad people ought to suffer: without a concept of ‘retribution’
punishment is rendered unjust (what can be more immoral than to inflict
suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it?). But
until the evil person finds evil unmistakably present in his or her existence,
in the form of pain, we are enclosed in illusion. Pain, as God’s megaphone,
gives us the only opportunity we may have for amendment. It plants the flag of
truth within the fortress of a rebel soul. All of us are aware that it is very
hard to turn our thoughts to God when things are going well. To ‘have all we
want’ is a terrible saying when ‘all’ does not include God. We regard him as we
do a heart-lung machine – there for emergencies, but we hope we’ll never have
to use it.
So God troubles our
selfishness, which stands between us and the recognition of our need. God’s
divine humility stoops to conquer, even if we choose him merely as an
alternative to hell. Yet even this he accepts!
Although pain is never
palatable, we humans are in some senses made ‘perfect through suffering’. I see
in Johnson and Cowper, for example, traits which might scarcely have been
tolerable if they had been happier. Suffering is not a ‘good’ in itself, and we
certainly want no Tamberlaines proclaiming themselves the ‘scourge of God’.
Very occasionally humans may be entitled to hurt their fellows (eg, parents,
magistrates or surgeons)
but only where the
necessity is urgent, the attainable good obvious, and when the one inflicting
the pain has proper authority to do so. Only a Satan transgresses beyond these.
(Luke 13:16)
A Christian cannot believe,
either, that merely reforming our economic, political or hygienic systems will
eventually eliminate pain and create a heaven on earth. God does indeed provide
us with some transient joy, pleasure, and even ecstasy here, but never with
permanent security, otherwise we might ‘mistake our pleasant inns for home’.
ANIMAL PAIN:
What about the ‘pain of
guiltless hurt which doth pierce the sky’? Do the beasts, and plants, ‘feel’?
Certainly both may react to injury but so does the anaesthetised human body;
reaction therefore does not prove sentience. Perhaps – we cannot be sure – we
have committed the fallacy of reading into other areas of life a ‘suffering
self’ for which there may be no real evidence.
HELL – ETERNAL SUFFERING?
The doctrine of hell,
although barbarous to many, has the full support of Scripture, especially of
our Lord’s own words; and has always been held by Christendom. And it has the
support of Reason: if a game is played it must be possible to lose it. If the
happiness of a creature lies in voluntary self-surrender to God, it also has
the right to voluntarily refuse.
I would pay any price to be
able to say truthfully ‘All will be saved’. But my reason retorts, ‘Without
their will, or with it’? In fact, God has paid the price, and herein lies the
real problem: so much mercy, yet still there is hell.
God can’t condone evil,
forgiving the wilfully unrepentant. Lost souls have their wish – to live wholly
in the Self, and to make the best of what they find there. And what they finds
there is hell. Should God increase our chances to repent? I believe that if a
million opportunities were likely to do good, they would be given. But finality
has to come some time. Our Lord uses three symbols to describe hell –
everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46), destruction (Matthew 10:28), and
privation, exclusion, banishment (Matthew 22:13). The image of fire illustrates
both torment and destruction (not annihilation – the destruction of one thing
issues in the emergence of something else, in both worlds). It may be feasible
that hell is hell not from its own point of view, but from that of heaven. And
it is also possible that the eternal fixity of the lost soul need not imply
endless duration. Our Lord emphasises rather the finality of hell. Does the
ultimate loss of a soul mean the defeat of Omnipotence? In a sense, yes. The
damned are successful rebels to the end, enslaved within the horrible freedom
they have demanded. The doors of hell are locked on the inside.
In the long run, objectors
to the doctrine of hell must answer this question: What are you asking God to
do? To wipe out their past sins, and at all costs to give them a fresh start,
smoothing every difficulty, and offering every miraculous help? But he has done
so – in the life and death of his Son. To forgive them? They will not be
forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, that is what he does. Hell, it must be
remembered, is not only inhabited by Neros or Judas Iscariots or Hitlers. They
were merely the principal actors in this rebellious drama.
HEAVEN
‘I consider,’ said Paul,
‘that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the
glory that is to be revealed in us’ (Romans 8:18). God’s heaven is not a bribe:
it offers nothing a mercenary soul can desire. The great summons to heaven is
that away from self. This is the ultimate law – the seed dies to live, the
bread must be cast upon the waters, if you lose your soul you’ll save it.
Perhaps self-conquest will never end; eternal life may mean an eternal dying.
It is in this sense that, as there may be pleasures in hell (God shield us from
them), there may be something not at all unlike pains in heaven (God grant us
soon to taste them).
ALL YOUR LIFE AN
UNATTAINABLE ECSTASY HAS HOVERED JUST BEYOND THE GRASP OF YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS.
THE DAY IS COMING WHEN YOU WILL WAKE TO FIND, BEYOND ALL HOPE, THAT YOU HAVE
ATTAINED IT, OR ELSE, THAT IT WAS WITHIN YOUR REACH AND YOU HAVE LOST IT
FOREVER.
***
[1] Important note in
Alister McGrath’s 2012 book Mere Apologetics: C S Lewis in The
Problem of Pain speaks of ‘suffering as God’s “megaphone to rouse a
deaf world…” Many feel that this approach is a little simplistic and inadequate
when confronted with the brutal, harsh reality of suffering… His famous work A
Grief Observed is a powerful critique of his own earlier approach
(173).
Bart Ehrman: How the Problem of Pain Ruined My Faith
posted by ntwright
For most of my life I was a devout Christian, believing in God, trusting in Christ for salvation, knowing that God was actively involved in this world. During my young adulthood, I was an evangelical, with a firm belief in the Bible as the inspired and inerrant word of God. During those years I had fairly simple but commonly held views about how there can be so much pain and misery in the world. God had given us free will (we weren’t programmed like robots), but since we were free to do good we were also free to do evil—hence the Holocaust, the genocide in Cambodia, and so on. To be sure, this view did not explain all evil in the world, but a good deal of suffering was a mystery and in the end, God would make right all that was wrong.
In my mid 20s, I left the evangelical fold, but I remained a Christian for some twenty years—a God-believing, sin-confessing, church-going Christian, who no longer held to the inerrancy of Scripture but who did believe that the Bible contained God’s word, trustworthy as the source for theological reflection. And the more I studied the Christian tradition, first as a graduate student in seminary and then as a young scholar teaching biblical studies at universities, the more sophisticated I became in my theological views and in my understanding of the world and our place in it.
Suffering increasingly became a problem for me and my faith. How can one explain all the pain and misery in the world if God—the creator and redeemer of all—is sovereign over it, exercising his will both on the grand scheme and in the daily workings of our lives? Why, I asked, is there such rampant starvation in the world? Why are there droughts, epidemics, hurricanes, and earthquakes? If God answers prayer, why didn’t he answer the prayers of the faithful Jews during the Holocaust? Or of the faithful Christians who also suffered torment and death at the hands of the Nazis? If God is concerned to answer my little prayers about my daily life, why didn’t he answer my and others’ big prayers when millions were being slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, when a mudslide killed 30,000 Columbians in their sleep, in a matter of minutes, when disasters of all kinds caused by humans and by nature happened in the world?
I read widely in the matter. I read philosophers, theologians, biblical scholars, great literary figures and popular authors from Plato to Sartre, from Apuleius to Dostoevsky, from the Apostle Paul to Henri Nouwen, from Shakespeare to T.S. Eliot to Archibald Macleish, from C. S. Lewis (with whom I was very taken) to Harold Kushner to Elie Wiesel.
Eventually, while still a Christian thinker, I came to believe that God himself is deeply concerned with suffering and intimately involved with it. The Christian message, for me, at the time, was that Jesus Christ is the revelation of God to us humans, and that in Jesus we can see how God deals with the world and relates to it. He relates to it, I thought, not by conquering it but by suffering for it. Jesus was not set on a throne in Jerusalem to rule over the Kingdom of God. He was crucified by the Romans, suffering a painful, excruciating, and humiliating death for us. What is God like? He is a God who suffers. The way he deals with suffering is by suffering both for us and alongside us.
This was my view for many years, and I still consider it a powerful theological view. It would be a view that I would still hold on to, if I were still a Christian. But I’m not.
About nine or ten years ago I came to realize that I simply no longer believed the Christian message. A large part of my movement away from the faith was driven by my concern for suffering. I simply no longer could hold to the view—which I took to be essential to Christian faith—that God was active in the world, that he answered prayer, that he intervened on behalf of his faithful, that he brought salvation in the past and that in the future, eventually in the coming eschaton, he would set to rights all that was wrong, that he would vindicate his name and his people and bring in a good kingdom (either at our deaths or here on earth in a future utopian existence).
We live in a world in which a child dies every five seconds of starvation. Every five seconds. Every minute there are twenty-five people who die because they do not have clean water to drink. Every hour 700 people die of malaria. Where is God in all this? We live in a world in which earthquakes in the Himalayas kill 50,000 people and leave 3 million without shelter in the face of oncoming winter. We live in a world where a hurricane destroys New Orleans. Where a tsunami kills 300,000 people in one fell swoop. Where millions of children are born with horrible birth defects. And where is God? To say that he eventually will make right all that is wrong seems to me, now, to be pure wishful thinking.
As it turns out, my various wrestlings with the problem have led me, even as an agnostic, back to the Bible, to see how different biblical authors wrestle with this, the greatest of all human questions. The result is my recent book, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question–Why We Suffer. My contention is that many of the authors of the Bible are wrestling with just this question: why do people (especially the people of God) suffer? The biblical answers are striking at times for their simplicity and power (suffering comes as a punishment from God for sin; suffering is a test of faith; suffering is created by cosmic powers aligned against God and his people; suffering is a huge mystery and we have no right to question why it happens; suffering is redemptive and is the means by which God brings salvation; and so on). Some of these answers are at odds with one another (is it God or his cosmic enemies who are creating havoc on earth?), yet many of them continue to inform religious thinkers today.
My hope in writing the book is certainly not to encourage readers to become agnostic, the path that I took. It is instead to help people think, both about this biggest of all possible questions and about the historically and culturally significant religious responses to it that can be found in the most important book in the history of our civilization.
Read more: http://www.beliefnet.
~~
Power of one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://www.jmm.org.au/
~~
I don't want to know about evil/I only want to know about love (Br songwriter John Martyn)
Hannah Arendt, reporting on Adolf Eichmann's trial more than half a century ago, gave the world the phrase 'the banality of evil'.
Two of the most continuously operating and far- reaching instruments of war are surveillance and drones... In time they will seep into all aspects of life.
Edward Snowden's disclosures on American surveillance within the US and globally show how close to the future we are. Obama - 'a perpetual war - through drones or special forces or troop deployments will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways. It has cost, the Pres acknowledged, 7000 lives and a trillion dollars...
Drones killing civilians
~~
What
do we do in the face of atrocities, keynote-speaker Michael Fishbane(University
of Chicago) asks. Do we hide? Do we, in Nietzsche's words, let insane laughter
rattle down the hall? Or do we remain standing and allow horrors to make a
claim on us?
Our response, Fishbane argues, is tied to the level of the self we've attained.
He identifies three levels.
As a natural self, our drive to keep going and our ability to interpret
the world and our experiences are intertwined. Sometimes horrors reduce us to
near paralysis and we rely “on small gestures.” Other times, we turn toward our
condition and open up to the world.
As a cultural self, we participate in the interpretive work of our
community and are characterized by multiple loops of entwinement. We learn
about ourselves by studying the sacred texts of our religious community. Faced
with horrors, we may seek to save our faith—because its framework provides us
with stability, we may attempt reassert the role of tradition with desperate
arguments and meaningless rhetoric. Alternatively, our attitude may be
transformed into one of compassion.
The highest level, the theological self, breaks through our
religious tradition’s sacred texts, exploding self-serving paradigms in favor
of God-centered ones. We are reformed into a disposition of humility and are
graced by endless intimations of God’s name: “I Shall Be.” Our interpretive
work arises from our divine depths and our spiritual values make physical
trials bearable.
~~
Why be good; why fight evil? And are we born or made to be good or evil (either or both)?
posted by ntwright
For most of my life I was a devout Christian, believing in God, trusting in Christ for salvation, knowing that God was actively involved in this world. During my young adulthood, I was an evangelical, with a firm belief in the Bible as the inspired and inerrant word of God. During those years I had fairly simple but commonly held views about how there can be so much pain and misery in the world. God had given us free will (we weren’t programmed like robots), but since we were free to do good we were also free to do evil—hence the Holocaust, the genocide in Cambodia, and so on. To be sure, this view did not explain all evil in the world, but a good deal of suffering was a mystery and in the end, God would make right all that was wrong.
In my mid 20s, I left the evangelical fold, but I remained a Christian for some twenty years—a God-believing, sin-confessing, church-going Christian, who no longer held to the inerrancy of Scripture but who did believe that the Bible contained God’s word, trustworthy as the source for theological reflection. And the more I studied the Christian tradition, first as a graduate student in seminary and then as a young scholar teaching biblical studies at universities, the more sophisticated I became in my theological views and in my understanding of the world and our place in it.
Suffering increasingly became a problem for me and my faith. How can one explain all the pain and misery in the world if God—the creator and redeemer of all—is sovereign over it, exercising his will both on the grand scheme and in the daily workings of our lives? Why, I asked, is there such rampant starvation in the world? Why are there droughts, epidemics, hurricanes, and earthquakes? If God answers prayer, why didn’t he answer the prayers of the faithful Jews during the Holocaust? Or of the faithful Christians who also suffered torment and death at the hands of the Nazis? If God is concerned to answer my little prayers about my daily life, why didn’t he answer my and others’ big prayers when millions were being slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, when a mudslide killed 30,000 Columbians in their sleep, in a matter of minutes, when disasters of all kinds caused by humans and by nature happened in the world?
I read widely in the matter. I read philosophers, theologians, biblical scholars, great literary figures and popular authors from Plato to Sartre, from Apuleius to Dostoevsky, from the Apostle Paul to Henri Nouwen, from Shakespeare to T.S. Eliot to Archibald Macleish, from C. S. Lewis (with whom I was very taken) to Harold Kushner to Elie Wiesel.
Eventually, while still a Christian thinker, I came to believe that God himself is deeply concerned with suffering and intimately involved with it. The Christian message, for me, at the time, was that Jesus Christ is the revelation of God to us humans, and that in Jesus we can see how God deals with the world and relates to it. He relates to it, I thought, not by conquering it but by suffering for it. Jesus was not set on a throne in Jerusalem to rule over the Kingdom of God. He was crucified by the Romans, suffering a painful, excruciating, and humiliating death for us. What is God like? He is a God who suffers. The way he deals with suffering is by suffering both for us and alongside us.
This was my view for many years, and I still consider it a powerful theological view. It would be a view that I would still hold on to, if I were still a Christian. But I’m not.
About nine or ten years ago I came to realize that I simply no longer believed the Christian message. A large part of my movement away from the faith was driven by my concern for suffering. I simply no longer could hold to the view—which I took to be essential to Christian faith—that God was active in the world, that he answered prayer, that he intervened on behalf of his faithful, that he brought salvation in the past and that in the future, eventually in the coming eschaton, he would set to rights all that was wrong, that he would vindicate his name and his people and bring in a good kingdom (either at our deaths or here on earth in a future utopian existence).
We live in a world in which a child dies every five seconds of starvation. Every five seconds. Every minute there are twenty-five people who die because they do not have clean water to drink. Every hour 700 people die of malaria. Where is God in all this? We live in a world in which earthquakes in the Himalayas kill 50,000 people and leave 3 million without shelter in the face of oncoming winter. We live in a world where a hurricane destroys New Orleans. Where a tsunami kills 300,000 people in one fell swoop. Where millions of children are born with horrible birth defects. And where is God? To say that he eventually will make right all that is wrong seems to me, now, to be pure wishful thinking.
As it turns out, my various wrestlings with the problem have led me, even as an agnostic, back to the Bible, to see how different biblical authors wrestle with this, the greatest of all human questions. The result is my recent book, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question–Why We Suffer. My contention is that many of the authors of the Bible are wrestling with just this question: why do people (especially the people of God) suffer? The biblical answers are striking at times for their simplicity and power (suffering comes as a punishment from God for sin; suffering is a test of faith; suffering is created by cosmic powers aligned against God and his people; suffering is a huge mystery and we have no right to question why it happens; suffering is redemptive and is the means by which God brings salvation; and so on). Some of these answers are at odds with one another (is it God or his cosmic enemies who are creating havoc on earth?), yet many of them continue to inform religious thinkers today.
My hope in writing the book is certainly not to encourage readers to become agnostic, the path that I took. It is instead to help people think, both about this biggest of all possible questions and about the historically and culturally significant religious responses to it that can be found in the most important book in the history of our civilization.
Read more: http://www.beliefnet.
~~
Power of one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http://www.jmm.org.au/
~~
I don't want to know about evil/I only want to know about love (Br songwriter John Martyn)
Hannah Arendt, reporting on Adolf Eichmann's trial more than half a century ago, gave the world the phrase 'the banality of evil'.
Two of the most continuously operating and far- reaching instruments of war are surveillance and drones... In time they will seep into all aspects of life.
Edward Snowden's disclosures on American surveillance within the US and globally show how close to the future we are. Obama - 'a perpetual war - through drones or special forces or troop deployments will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways. It has cost, the Pres acknowledged, 7000 lives and a trillion dollars...
Drones killing civilians
~~
What
do we do in the face of atrocities, keynote-speaker Michael Fishbane(University
of Chicago) asks. Do we hide? Do we, in Nietzsche's words, let insane laughter
rattle down the hall? Or do we remain standing and allow horrors to make a
claim on us?
Our response, Fishbane argues, is tied to the level of the self we've attained. He identifies three levels.
As a natural self, our drive to keep going and our ability to interpret the world and our experiences are intertwined. Sometimes horrors reduce us to near paralysis and we rely “on small gestures.” Other times, we turn toward our condition and open up to the world.
As a cultural self, we participate in the interpretive work of our community and are characterized by multiple loops of entwinement. We learn about ourselves by studying the sacred texts of our religious community. Faced with horrors, we may seek to save our faith—because its framework provides us with stability, we may attempt reassert the role of tradition with desperate arguments and meaningless rhetoric. Alternatively, our attitude may be transformed into one of compassion.
The highest level, the theological self, breaks through our religious tradition’s sacred texts, exploding self-serving paradigms in favor of God-centered ones. We are reformed into a disposition of humility and are graced by endless intimations of God’s name: “I Shall Be.” Our interpretive work arises from our divine depths and our spiritual values make physical trials bearable.
~~
Our response, Fishbane argues, is tied to the level of the self we've attained. He identifies three levels.
As a natural self, our drive to keep going and our ability to interpret the world and our experiences are intertwined. Sometimes horrors reduce us to near paralysis and we rely “on small gestures.” Other times, we turn toward our condition and open up to the world.
As a cultural self, we participate in the interpretive work of our community and are characterized by multiple loops of entwinement. We learn about ourselves by studying the sacred texts of our religious community. Faced with horrors, we may seek to save our faith—because its framework provides us with stability, we may attempt reassert the role of tradition with desperate arguments and meaningless rhetoric. Alternatively, our attitude may be transformed into one of compassion.
The highest level, the theological self, breaks through our religious tradition’s sacred texts, exploding self-serving paradigms in favor of God-centered ones. We are reformed into a disposition of humility and are graced by endless intimations of God’s name: “I Shall Be.” Our interpretive work arises from our divine depths and our spiritual values make physical trials bearable.
~~
Why be good; why fight evil? And are we born or made to be good or evil (either or both)?
Every culture contains good and bad elements. Every language has different concepts about what is right and wrong.
Consider:
Cruelty and wrong are not the greatest forces in the world. There is nothing eternal in them. Only love is eternal. ~~ Elizabeth Elliot
The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either - but right through the human heart. ~~ Alexandr Solzhenitzyn
I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant. ~~ Martin Luther King Jr
There is no good and evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it. ~~J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing~~ Edmund Burke
~~
è Three of the best, most serene human beings I've ever known were married - until death parted them - to very angry men. How did those women get to be like that?
è During the last quarter-century Nelson Mandela was the world’s most admired human being. How did he get to be like that? (Clue: 'Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies').
One Monday morning a distressed and battered woman in her 30s came to see me. She'd just been released - again - from hospital.
'I guess I can cope with being treated like this - even the broken bones,' she said, 'but it's not fair for my two kids. They're becoming more and more frightened...'
'So what do you want to do?' I asked.
'I'm leaving, but I have nowhere to go.'
'Do you want me to find a safe place?'
One phone call and it was arranged, to begin that night. The following week I heard that her psychotic husband planned to come after me with a gun. Sometimes it's not even safe being a pastor!
~~
Born or made?
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, pedophile priests… : were they born or made like that? (Stalin: ‘One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic’).
What drives the sniper/s in Syria to shoot women in the pelvic area one day, and the left breast the next and the right breast the day after, according to a British medical volunteer? (Today I read of Egyptian snipers who aim at strangers’ eyes).
I grew up during the Second World War, when our world was mostly divided into ‘Allies’ and ‘Others’. We boys played ‘Aussies and Japs’, ‘goodies and baddies’, ‘cops and robbers’… At our primary school there were bullies and ‘sissies’, and once a year Santa Claus sorted out who was naughty and nice. In our little church we were ‘good’ (= ‘saved’); others might be good too but because they were not ‘of us’ their eternal destiny was decidedly suspect. But then, I wondered, why were there sometimes very heated arguments in our little Christian ‘Assembly’ over some issues? Two of our elders had a stand-up row in everyone’s hearing about whether we should play a radio ‘in church’ (one of them argued that as Satan was ‘the prince of the power of the air’ radio-waves were contaminated with evil)…
Ă Which – if any – of these boxes would you tick? :
All are born good (Confucius) [ ]
We are all contaminated with ‘original sin’; so sin corrupts the entire human nature (Augustine) [ ]
People are able to choose not to sin (Pelagius) [ ]
Whoever is without sin may cast the first stone (Jesus, John 8:7). All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Paul, Romans 3:23) [ ]
‘In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart’ (Anne Frank, German-born diarist and Holocaust victim) [ ]
‘The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil’ (Hannah Arendt, German-Jewish political philosopher) [ ]
‘The line between good and evil is permeable and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured by situational forces’ (Philip Zimbardo). [ ]
World War II criminal Adolph Eichmann said he was simply following instructions when he ordered the deaths of millions of Jews. Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram asked himself how common that attitude might be? He devised a classic experiment where 40 participants were asked/ordered to progressively increase electric shocks from 15 to 450 volts to an unseen (but vocal) victim. How many went all the way? A sample of students guessed '3%.' The actual number? 26 of the 40! Only 14 stopped earlier. Other research on obedience has corroborated these results. Scary! [http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm ]
And God…?
What is good? What is evil?
The world is not dangerous because of those who do harm, but because of those who look at it without doing anything. ~~ Albert Einstein
2. The Power of One: You, yes you, can make a difference. (Faith)
History – and legend – is replete with stories about sometimes ordinary individuals who were overwhelmed with a desire to rectify a wrong, and, against all odds, defeated evil. (Sangster – did all England wake up? Wilberforce etc. See articles Power of One).
3. I’m not on my own: ‘I can do all things, through Christ, who strengthens me’.
By doing good we become good ~~ Jean-Jacques Rousseau
~~John Wesley
Watch your thoughts, for they become words. Watch your words, for they become actions. Watch your actions, for they become habits. Watch your habits, for they become character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
~~ Unknown
You’ve heard this widely-quoted wisdom by a Native American elder: ‘Inside of me there are two dogs. One of the dogs is mean and evil. The other dog is good. The mean dog fights the good dog all the time.’ When asked which dog wins, he replied, ‘The one I feed the most.’
Finally, a daily prayer to help you conquer evil and be committed to goodness:
John Stott's Morning Trinitarian Prayer
Good morning heavenly Father,
Good morning Holy Spirit.
Lord Jesus, I worship you, Saviour and Lord of the world.
Holy Spirit, I worship you, sanctifier of the people of God.
- John Stott. There are variations of this prayer in books by and about John Stott. This version is from Basic Christian: The Inside Story of John Stott.
~~
This essay comprises the gist of The Problem of Pain by C.S.Lewis. This apologetic classic ought to be read alongside Lewis’ later work, A Grief Observed [1]. The first book was written from his head, the second from his heart (after his wife died). Make sure you see the film/video about C S Lewis and Joy Davidman –Shadowlands. The Problem of Pain has some brilliant insights. This paper will provide a good basis for an adult group discussion.
~~
Power of one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
~~
I don't want to know about evil/I only want to know about love (Br songwriter John Martyn)
Hannah Arendt, reporting on Adolf Eichmann's trial more than half a century ago, gave the world the phrase 'the banality of evil'.
Two of the most continuously operating and far- reaching instruments of war are surveillance and drones... In time they will seep into all aspects of life.
Edward Snowden's disclosures on American surveillance within the US and globally show how close to the future we are. Obama - 'a perpetual war - through drones or special forces or troop deployments will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways. It has cost, the Pres acknowledged, 7000 lives and a trillion dollars...
Drones killing civilians
~~
What do we do in the face of atrocities, keynote-speaker Michael Fishbane(University of Chicago) asks. Do we hide? Do we, in Nietzsche's words, let insane laughter rattle down the hall? Or do we remain standing and allow horrors to make a claim on us?
Our response, Fishbane argues, is tied to the level of the self we've attained. He identifies three levels.
As a natural self, our drive to keep going and our ability to interpret the world and our experiences are intertwined. Sometimes horrors reduce us to near paralysis and we rely “on small gestures.” Other times, we turn toward our condition and open up to the world.
As a cultural self, we participate in the interpretive work of our community and are characterized by multiple loops of entwinement. We learn about ourselves by studying the sacred texts of our religious community. Faced with horrors, we may seek to save our faith—because its framework provides us with stability, we may attempt reassert the role of tradition with desperate arguments and meaningless rhetoric. Alternatively, our attitude may be transformed into one of compassion.
The highest level, the theological self, breaks through our religious tradition’s sacred texts, exploding self-serving paradigms in favor of God-centered ones. We are reformed into a disposition of humility and are graced by endless intimations of God’s name: “I Shall Be.” Our interpretive work arises from our divine depths and our spiritual values make physical trials bearable.
~~
2.
William Schweiker (University of Chicago) asks what we mean when we
speak of the highest good. To answer this question, he “thinks with” the German
Enlightenment philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and “with” the English
co-founder of Methodist Protestantism, John Wesley (1708-1791).
Happiness, for Kant, results when our basic needs are met and human life can
flourish.Christian happiness, for Wesley, results when we perceive
“the divine life animating one’s own life.” Wesley also has a notion of
holiness that unfolds in stages until we reach perfection: the “complete love
of God and love of the neighbor as one’s self.”
Both Kant and Wesley argue that we need God to secure happiness: to procure the
goods that meet our basic needs (Kant) and to animate our lives with the divine
life (Wesley). Schweiker adds his own twist: he maintains that happiness
requires both conditions—sufficient goods to meet our basic needs and the
divine life to animate our own.
Kant and Wesley conceive of God as guarantor of the highest
human good—the combination of happiness and virtue (Kant), or happiness and
holiness (Wesley). Schweiker also conceives of God as guarantor but he revises
their notion of the human good. For him, the good, grounded in this life, is
“bound to the responsibility of persons and communities to exercise and enhance
the integrity of life, human, non-human, and even divine life.”
~~~
Saddam's two sons - EVIL!
http://www.jmm.org.au/articles/33606.htm
Every culture contains good and bad elements. Every language has different concepts about what is right and wrong.
Consider:
Cruelty and wrong are not the greatest forces in the world. There is nothing eternal in them. Only love is eternal. ~~ Elizabeth Elliot
The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either - but right through the human heart. ~~ Alexandr Solzhenitzyn
I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant. ~~ Martin Luther King Jr
There is no good and evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it. ~~J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing~~ Edmund Burke
~~
è Three of the best, most serene human beings I've ever known were married - until death parted them - to very angry men. How did those women get to be like that?
è During the last quarter-century Nelson Mandela was the world’s most admired human being. How did he get to be like that? (Clue: 'Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies').
~~
One Monday morning a distressed and battered woman in her 30s came to see me. She'd just been released - again - from hospital.
'I guess I can cope with being treated like this - even the broken bones,' she said, 'but it's not fair for my two kids. They're becoming more and more frightened...'
'So what do you want to do?' I asked.
'I'm leaving, but I have nowhere to go.'
'Do you want me to find a safe place?'
One phone call and it was arranged, to begin that night. The following week I heard that her psychotic husband planned to come after me with a gun. Sometimes it's not even safe being a pastor!
~~
Born or made?
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, pedophile priests… : were they born or made like that? (Stalin: ‘One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic’).
What drives the sniper/s in Syria to shoot women in the pelvic area one day, and the left breast the next and the right breast the day after, according to a British medical volunteer? (Today I read of Egyptian snipers who aim at strangers’ eyes).
I grew up during the Second World War, when our world was mostly divided into ‘Allies’ and ‘Others’. We boys played ‘Aussies and Japs’, ‘goodies and baddies’, ‘cops and robbers’… At our primary school there were bullies and ‘sissies’, and once a year Santa Claus sorted out who was naughty and nice. In our little church we were ‘good’ (= ‘saved’); others might be good too but because they were not ‘of us’ their eternal destiny was decidedly suspect. But then, I wondered, why were there sometimes very heated arguments in our little Christian ‘Assembly’ over some issues? Two of our elders had a stand-up row in everyone’s hearing about whether we should play a radio ‘in church’ (one of them argued that as Satan was ‘the prince of the power of the air’ radio-waves were contaminated with evil)…
Ă Which – if any – of these boxes would you tick? :
All are born good (Confucius) [ ]
We are all contaminated with ‘original sin’; so sin corrupts the entire human nature (Augustine) [ ]
['Augustine taught that Adam's guilt as transmitted to his descendants much enfeebles, though does not destroy, the freedom of their will, Protestant reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin affirmed that Original Sin completely destroyed liberty’ (see Wikipedia total depravity). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo ]
People are able to choose not to sin (Pelagius) [ ]
Whoever is without sin may cast the first stone (Jesus, John 8:7). All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Paul, Romans 3:23) [ ]
‘In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart’ (Anne Frank, German-born diarist and Holocaust victim) [ ]
‘The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil’ (Hannah Arendt, German-Jewish political philosopher) [ ]
‘The line between good and evil is permeable and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured by situational forces’ (Philip Zimbardo). [ ]
World War II criminal Adolph Eichmann said he was simply following instructions when he ordered the deaths of millions of Jews. Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram asked himself how common that attitude might be? He devised a classic experiment where 40 participants were asked/ordered to progressively increase electric shocks from 15 to 450 volts to an unseen (but vocal) victim. How many went all the way? A sample of students guessed '3%.' The actual number? 26 of the 40! Only 14 stopped earlier. Other research on obedience has corroborated these results. Scary! [http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm ]
And God…?
Ă Are you happy with any of these?
’God did not create evil. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God’ (Albert Einstein) [ ]
The forces of light and darkness are pitted against each other in a permanent stand-off, with humanity as the battlefield (Manicheanism) [ ]
‘Zoroastrianism is about the opposition of good and evil. For the triumph of good, we have to make a choice. We can enlist on the side of good by prospering, making money and using our wealth to help others’ (Rohinton Mistry) [ ]
‘When asked why, God being good, there was evil in the world, Sri Ramakrishna said, "To thicken the plot.”’ (Unknown) [ ]
What is good? What is evil?
Here's a Buddhist contribution: 'Goodness... moves us in the direction of harmonious coexistence, empathy and solidarity with others. The nature of evil, on the other hand, is to divide: people from people, humanity from the rest of nature...
Remaining silent in the face of injustice is the same as supporting it.
[Buddhist Inspiration for daily living ( http://www.ikedaquotes.org/good-evil )]
And a Jewish insight: 'A thimbleful of light will therefore banish a roomful of darkness... Evil is not a thing or force, but merely the absence or concealment of good. One need not "defeat" the evil in the world; one need only bring to light its inherent goodness. [http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/60857/jewish/Good-and-Evil.htm]
That may not always be easy. C S Lewis in The Problem of Pain warns us: ’If God is wiser… his judgment must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in his eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil’.
And history teaches us that evil lurks both in humanity’s dark corners and also its high places. (Wasn’t it Edgar in Shakespeare’s King Lear who said ‘The devil is a quite a gentleman’?).
From theory to practice: what can I do?
Altruism – a selfless concern for the well-being of others - may be both culturally specific and a learned approach to life. Charles Darwin suggested that we're all born with basic needs and instincts to survive, but as social beings, we learn that by aiding others we benefit ourselves.
Random acts of kindness…
If someone needs your help, why not? If something needs cleaning up, why not you? And re our words, remember the famous Sai Baba quote: ‘Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary’? And does it improve the silence?'
A caveat: not every person or situation needs my intervention to fix things. Thoreau warned, ‘If you see someone coming towards you with the obvious intent of doing you good, run for your life!’ (Elsewhere, cheekily: ‘As for Doing-good...I have tried it fairly, and, strange as it may seem, am satisfied that it does not agree with my constitution’). As one of the wisest pastors I knew used to say: ‘The best thing you can do for some people is leave them alone.’
Here are four principles I’ve found helpful:
1. You can do something (rather than nothing).
It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
The world is not dangerous because of those who do harm, but because of those who look at it without doing anything. ~~ Albert Einstein
‘We shall have to repent in this generation not so much for the evil deeds of the wicked people but for the appalling silence of the good people…’ ’Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. To ignore evil is to become an accomplice to it.’ ~~M L King.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good [people] to do nothing.
In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up. ~~ Martin Niemoeller
2. The Power of One: You, yes you, can make a difference. (Faith)
History – and legend – is replete with stories about sometimes ordinary individuals who were overwhelmed with a desire to rectify a wrong, and, against all odds, defeated evil. (Sangster – did all England wake up? Wilberforce etc. See articles Power of One).
3. I’m not on my own: ‘I can do all things, through Christ, who strengthens me’.
All things? Yes, even fail. There are two things you can say about all the biblical leaders: they all seemed to be failures, and they spent a lot of time alone in deserts.
Jesus struggled with good and evil for forty days in the desert; he confronted the sometimes subtle evils of religious legalism as well as the more overt evils of ‘the powers’.
‘Meditation – morning and evening – is the best antidote known to humanity to keep us awake, clear-minded about the illusions that lure us and the fears that control us. And to keep us attuned to the beauty and freshness of reality as each day invites us to be more awake, more real.’ (Laurence Freeman OSB’s weekly reading which arrived in my email inbox today. www.wcom.org. )
4. So ‘Do Good’: It’s a Good Choice…
By doing good we become good ~~ Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good… We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. ~~ St. Paul
Do all the good you can,
By all the means you can,
In all the ways you can,
In all the places you can,
At all the times you can,
To all the people you can,
As long as you ever can.
~~John Wesley
Watch your thoughts, for they become words. Watch your words, for they become actions. Watch your actions, for they become habits. Watch your habits, for they become character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.
~~ Unknown
And Never Forget…
‘In each of us, two natures are at war – the good and the evil. All our lives the fight goes on between them, and one of them must conquer. But in our own hands lies the power to choose – what we want most to be we are.’ ~~ Robert Louis Stevenson
You’ve heard this widely-quoted wisdom by a Native American elder: ‘Inside of me there are two dogs. One of the dogs is mean and evil. The other dog is good. The mean dog fights the good dog all the time.’ When asked which dog wins, he replied, ‘The one I feed the most.’
Finally, a daily prayer to help you conquer evil and be committed to goodness:
John Stott's Morning Trinitarian Prayer
Good morning heavenly Father,
Good morning Lord Jesus,
Good morning Holy Spirit.
Lord Jesus, I worship you, Saviour and Lord of the world.
Holy Spirit, I worship you, sanctifier of the people of God.
Good morning Holy Spirit.
Lord Jesus, I worship you, Saviour and Lord of the world.
Holy Spirit, I worship you, sanctifier of the people of God.
Heavenly Father, I worship you as the creator and sustainer of the universe.
Glory to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
Heavenly Father, I pray that I may live this day in your presence and please you more and more.
Lord Jesus, I pray that this day I may take up my cross and follow you.
Holy Spirit, I pray that this day you will fill me with yourself and cause your fruit to ripen in my life: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
Holy, blessed and glorious Trinity, three persons in one God, have mercy upon me. Amen.
- John Stott. There are variations of this prayer in books by and about John Stott. This version is from Basic Christian: The Inside Story of John Stott.
~~
This essay comprises the gist of The Problem of Pain by C.S.Lewis. This apologetic classic ought to be read alongside Lewis’ later work, A Grief Observed [1]. The first book was written from his head, the second from his heart (after his wife died). Make sure you see the film/video about C S Lewis and Joy Davidman –Shadowlands. The Problem of Pain has some brilliant insights. This paper will provide a good basis for an adult group discussion.
…..
‘If God were good, he would wish to make his creatures perfectly happy, and if God were almighty he would be able to do as he wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both.’
These creatures cause pain be being born, live by inflicting pain, and in pain they mostly die. Why?
And however did human beings attribute the universe to the activity of a wise and good Creator? All of the great religions were first preached, and long practised, in a world without chloroform! Christianity, in a sense, creates the ‘problem of pain’ by postulating that ultimate reality is righteous and loving.
IS GOD ALL-POWERFUL?
The Bible asserts that ‘with God all things are possible’. This must tacitly exclude, of course, the intrinsically impossible – you may attribute miracles to God, but not nonsense. In God’s universe there are physical and moral laws, which may operate beneficially for some but not for others: water which is ‘beautifully hot’ to a Japanese adult in a Sento bath will burn a small child. Morally, because wrong actions result where free wills operate, the possibility of suffering is inevitable. God does not violate the aggressive person’s will to strike the innocent.
IS HE ALL-LOVING?
When Christians say that ‘God is Love’, what do they mean? Is he a senile benevolence who wishes you to be happy in your own way? A disinterested cosmic magistrate? Or a mere ‘heavenly host’ who feels responsible for the comfort of his guests? No, no and no. To ask that God’s love should be content with us as we are is to ask that God should cease to be God. Because his love is a ‘consuming fire’ he must labour to make us truly lovable, and when we are such as he can love without impediment, only then shall we in fact be truly happy. Nor is God’s love selfishly possessive, like that of an immature parent. He who lacks nothing chooses to need us, but only because we need to be needed. His commands to worship and obey him marshall us towards our most utter ‘good’ if only we knew it. Thus there are only three real alternatives: to be God; to be like God and to share his goodness in creaturely response; and to be miserable.
IS PAIN OUR FAULT?
Because some psychoanalysts have explained away the old Christian sense of sin, God easily seems to us to be impossibly demanding, or else inexplicably angry. To our resentful consciousness the ‘wrath’ of God seems a barbarous doctrine. Occasionally we might admit our guilt, or perhaps blame ‘the system’, or hope that time will heal our past misdemeanours. But the fact and guilt of sin are not erased by time, but by contrite repentance and the blood of Christ. God’s road to the Promised Land runs first past Sinai, and then Calvary. We are creatures whose basic character is a horror to God, as it is, when we really see it, a horror to ourselves.
We humans have deliberately abused our free-will, one of God’s best gifts to us. And we are not getting any better – not even the animals treat other creatures as badly as humans sometimes treat other humans. From the moment a creature becomes aware of God as God, and of itself as self, there is the danger of self-idolatry, pride. But God has the antidote: he saw the crucufixion of his Son in the act of creating the first nebulae. God himself assumes the suffering nature which evil produces, and offers forgiveness, and life in Christ.
‘UNDESERVED’ HUMAN PAIN:
Probably four-fifths of all human suffering derives from our misusing nature, or hurting other people. We, not God, have produced racks, whips, prisons, guns and bombs. It is by human avarice and stupidity that we suffer all of our ‘social’ evils.
Because we are rebels against God who must lay down our arms, our other pains may indeed constitute God’s megaphone to rouse a deaf world to surrender. There is a universal feeling that bad people ought to suffer: without a concept of ‘retribution’ punishment is rendered unjust (what can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it?). But until the evil person finds evil unmistakably present in his or her existence, in the form of pain, we are enclosed in illusion. Pain, as God’s megaphone, gives us the only opportunity we may have for amendment. It plants the flag of truth within the fortress of a rebel soul. All of us are aware that it is very hard to turn our thoughts to God when things are going well. To ‘have all we want’ is a terrible saying when ‘all’ does not include God. We regard him as we do a heart-lung machine – there for emergencies, but we hope we’ll never have to use it.
So God troubles our selfishness, which stands between us and the recognition of our need. God’s divine humility stoops to conquer, even if we choose him merely as an alternative to hell. Yet even this he accepts!
Although pain is never palatable, we humans are in some senses made ‘perfect through suffering’. I see in Johnson and Cowper, for example, traits which might scarcely have been tolerable if they had been happier. Suffering is not a ‘good’ in itself, and we certainly want no Tamberlaines proclaiming themselves the ‘scourge of God’. Very occasionally humans may be entitled to hurt their fellows (eg, parents, magistrates or surgeons)
but only where the necessity is urgent, the attainable good obvious, and when the one inflicting the pain has proper authority to do so. Only a Satan transgresses beyond these. (Luke 13:16)
A Christian cannot believe, either, that merely reforming our economic, political or hygienic systems will eventually eliminate pain and create a heaven on earth. God does indeed provide us with some transient joy, pleasure, and even ecstasy here, but never with permanent security, otherwise we might ‘mistake our pleasant inns for home’.
ANIMAL PAIN:
What about the ‘pain of guiltless hurt which doth pierce the sky’? Do the beasts, and plants, ‘feel’? Certainly both may react to injury but so does the anaesthetised human body; reaction therefore does not prove sentience. Perhaps – we cannot be sure – we have committed the fallacy of reading into other areas of life a ‘suffering self’ for which there may be no real evidence.
HELL – ETERNAL SUFFERING?
The doctrine of hell, although barbarous to many, has the full support of Scripture, especially of our Lord’s own words; and has always been held by Christendom. And it has the support of Reason: if a game is played it must be possible to lose it. If the happiness of a creature lies in voluntary self-surrender to God, it also has the right to voluntarily refuse.
I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully ‘All will be saved’. But my reason retorts, ‘Without their will, or with it’? In fact, God has paid the price, and herein lies the real problem: so much mercy, yet still there is hell.
God can’t condone evil, forgiving the wilfully unrepentant. Lost souls have their wish – to live wholly in the Self, and to make the best of what they find there. And what they finds there is hell. Should God increase our chances to repent? I believe that if a million opportunities were likely to do good, they would be given. But finality has to come some time. Our Lord uses three symbols to describe hell – everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46), destruction (Matthew 10:28), and privation, exclusion, banishment (Matthew 22:13). The image of fire illustrates both torment and destruction (not annihilation – the destruction of one thing issues in the emergence of something else, in both worlds). It may be feasible that hell is hell not from its own point of view, but from that of heaven. And it is also possible that the eternal fixity of the lost soul need not imply endless duration. Our Lord emphasises rather the finality of hell. Does the ultimate loss of a soul mean the defeat of Omnipotence? In a sense, yes. The damned are successful rebels to the end, enslaved within the horrible freedom they have demanded. The doors of hell are locked on the inside.
In the long run, objectors to the doctrine of hell must answer this question: What are you asking God to do? To wipe out their past sins, and at all costs to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty, and offering every miraculous help? But he has done so – in the life and death of his Son. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, that is what he does. Hell, it must be remembered, is not only inhabited by Neros or Judas Iscariots or Hitlers. They were merely the principal actors in this rebellious drama.
HEAVEN
‘I consider,’ said Paul, ‘that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed in us’ (Romans 8:18). God’s heaven is not a bribe: it offers nothing a mercenary soul can desire. The great summons to heaven is that away from self. This is the ultimate law – the seed dies to live, the bread must be cast upon the waters, if you lose your soul you’ll save it. Perhaps self-conquest will never end; eternal life may mean an eternal dying. It is in this sense that, as there may be pleasures in hell (God shield us from them), there may be something not at all unlike pains in heaven (God grant us soon to taste them).
ALL YOUR LIFE AN UNATTAINABLE ECSTASY HAS HOVERED JUST BEYOND THE GRASP OF YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS. THE DAY IS COMING WHEN YOU WILL WAKE TO FIND, BEYOND ALL HOPE, THAT YOU HAVE ATTAINED IT, OR ELSE, THAT IT WAS WITHIN YOUR REACH AND YOU HAVE LOST IT FOREVER.
***
[1] Important note in Alister McGrath’s 2012 book Mere Apologetics: C S Lewis in The Problem of Pain speaks of ‘suffering as God’s “megaphone to rouse a deaf world…” Many feel that this approach is a little simplistic and inadequate when confronted with the brutal, harsh reality of suffering… His famous work A Grief Observed is a powerful critique of his own earlier approach (173).
~~
Power of one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
~~
I don't want to know about evil/I only want to know about love (Br songwriter John Martyn)
Hannah Arendt, reporting on Adolf Eichmann's trial more than half a century ago, gave the world the phrase 'the banality of evil'.
Two of the most continuously operating and far- reaching instruments of war are surveillance and drones... In time they will seep into all aspects of life.
Edward Snowden's disclosures on American surveillance within the US and globally show how close to the future we are. Obama - 'a perpetual war - through drones or special forces or troop deployments will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways. It has cost, the Pres acknowledged, 7000 lives and a trillion dollars...
Drones killing civilians
~~
~~
What do we do in the face of atrocities, keynote-speaker Michael Fishbane(University of Chicago) asks. Do we hide? Do we, in Nietzsche's words, let insane laughter rattle down the hall? Or do we remain standing and allow horrors to make a claim on us?
Our response, Fishbane argues, is tied to the level of the self we've attained. He identifies three levels.
As a natural self, our drive to keep going and our ability to interpret the world and our experiences are intertwined. Sometimes horrors reduce us to near paralysis and we rely “on small gestures.” Other times, we turn toward our condition and open up to the world.
As a cultural self, we participate in the interpretive work of our community and are characterized by multiple loops of entwinement. We learn about ourselves by studying the sacred texts of our religious community. Faced with horrors, we may seek to save our faith—because its framework provides us with stability, we may attempt reassert the role of tradition with desperate arguments and meaningless rhetoric. Alternatively, our attitude may be transformed into one of compassion.
The highest level, the theological self, breaks through our religious tradition’s sacred texts, exploding self-serving paradigms in favor of God-centered ones. We are reformed into a disposition of humility and are graced by endless intimations of God’s name: “I Shall Be.” Our interpretive work arises from our divine depths and our spiritual values make physical trials bearable.
Our response, Fishbane argues, is tied to the level of the self we've attained. He identifies three levels.
As a natural self, our drive to keep going and our ability to interpret the world and our experiences are intertwined. Sometimes horrors reduce us to near paralysis and we rely “on small gestures.” Other times, we turn toward our condition and open up to the world.
As a cultural self, we participate in the interpretive work of our community and are characterized by multiple loops of entwinement. We learn about ourselves by studying the sacred texts of our religious community. Faced with horrors, we may seek to save our faith—because its framework provides us with stability, we may attempt reassert the role of tradition with desperate arguments and meaningless rhetoric. Alternatively, our attitude may be transformed into one of compassion.
The highest level, the theological self, breaks through our religious tradition’s sacred texts, exploding self-serving paradigms in favor of God-centered ones. We are reformed into a disposition of humility and are graced by endless intimations of God’s name: “I Shall Be.” Our interpretive work arises from our divine depths and our spiritual values make physical trials bearable.
~~
2.
William Schweiker (University of Chicago) asks what we mean when we
speak of the highest good. To answer this question, he “thinks with” the German
Enlightenment philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and “with” the English
co-founder of Methodist Protestantism, John Wesley (1708-1791).
Happiness, for Kant, results when our basic needs are met and human life can flourish.Christian happiness, for Wesley, results when we perceive “the divine life animating one’s own life.” Wesley also has a notion of holiness that unfolds in stages until we reach perfection: the “complete love of God and love of the neighbor as one’s self.”
Both Kant and Wesley argue that we need God to secure happiness: to procure the goods that meet our basic needs (Kant) and to animate our lives with the divine life (Wesley). Schweiker adds his own twist: he maintains that happiness requires both conditions—sufficient goods to meet our basic needs and the divine life to animate our own.
Kant and Wesley conceive of God as guarantor of the highest human good—the combination of happiness and virtue (Kant), or happiness and holiness (Wesley). Schweiker also conceives of God as guarantor but he revises their notion of the human good. For him, the good, grounded in this life, is “bound to the responsibility of persons and communities to exercise and enhance the integrity of life, human, non-human, and even divine life.”
~~~
Saddam's two sons - EVIL!
http://www.jmm.org.au/articles/33606.htm
Happiness, for Kant, results when our basic needs are met and human life can flourish.Christian happiness, for Wesley, results when we perceive “the divine life animating one’s own life.” Wesley also has a notion of holiness that unfolds in stages until we reach perfection: the “complete love of God and love of the neighbor as one’s self.”
Both Kant and Wesley argue that we need God to secure happiness: to procure the goods that meet our basic needs (Kant) and to animate our lives with the divine life (Wesley). Schweiker adds his own twist: he maintains that happiness requires both conditions—sufficient goods to meet our basic needs and the divine life to animate our own.
Kant and Wesley conceive of God as guarantor of the highest human good—the combination of happiness and virtue (Kant), or happiness and holiness (Wesley). Schweiker also conceives of God as guarantor but he revises their notion of the human good. For him, the good, grounded in this life, is “bound to the responsibility of persons and communities to exercise and enhance the integrity of life, human, non-human, and even divine life.”
~~~
Saddam's two sons - EVIL!
http://www.jmm.org.au/articles/33606.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment