quote:

---

Again, I don’t see how anything I’ve said qualifies the view that ALL EVIL ultimately comes from wills other than God. Were it not for human and angelic evil choices, there would be no evil in creation.

---

Now this is what I'd call use of a technicality. I could just as easily say that, human and angelic evil choices and the reprecussions that follow them would NOT exist if it weren't for God creating the universe when He didn't have to do so. Now, factor in the "inevitability" of the emergence of sin, if you hold to that. I can use this to say that all evil does ULTIMATELY come from God. But we don't want to argue on this level, now do we?

_____________________________________________

Doc said:

quote:

---

Pia (On God esteem Godself first): How does the shepherd who leaves the flock of 99 behind for the sake of the single lost sheep fit into this scheme? Or the party in heaven over one sinner who repents? Etc. If the Father intends the creation to be a gift to the Son, then how come the Son gets crucified when he shows up here? No wonder he felt forsaken by the Father!

Doc: You go girl! GREAT question. This is exactly why I wouldn’t construe the ‘absoluteness" of God’s self-valuation as a "More" or "less" love. God IS love, and the gift is love. And love looks like the Shepard looking for a sheep and a Son crucified on a cross – and THIS is how "God is glorified." The magnificence of God’s omnipotent sovereign glory is revealed most fully in the cross. It’s a gift to the Son in part, and perhaps most essentially, because it involves the Son. LOVE.

---

Wait a sec. Does this not depend on how one defines love? Isn't it a biblical idea that love is esteeming others HIGHER than oneself?? If you were someone who held to this idea, how could you speak of esteeming in the context as we are and NOT think of "loving"? Moreover, are there not DIFFERENT TYPES of love? You told me so. Remember THIS IDEA that I had back last year about reconciling God's glorification and the idea of omnibenevolence. (The third post on the page) You told me that my idea was "a form of love", but not the PERFECTION of love. Basically you said that in my scenario, if Nette and I were to esteem our OWN wishes higher than those of the other people, and CONDITION the expression of our love on that basis, that we would not be engaging in the perfection of love. (Incidentally, this episode is what sealed it for me that you were talking about EXHAUSTIVELY DEFINED "for you" omnibenevolence)

Do you see how one who believes that love entails ESTEEMING another higher than oneself can reasonably ask the question about God "loving more or less"? Just a thought.

_____________________________________

quote:

---

Meph: What we can know, as OVTers, is that it is the case the NOT ALL evil is ordained by God. And isn't that ESSENTIALLY what you want to say anyway?

Doc: This isn’t strong enough. I want to say that NO EVIL is ordained by God. If God ORDAINED it FROM THE START, its not evil. Now I grant that God has to allow for the possibility of evil (if he wants the possibility of love) that he may IN THE FLOW OF HISTORY even decree a lesser evil to avoid a greater evil, and that he will work to bring a good purpose OUT OF evil. But I don’t see that need or theological advantage of going the Calvinist route of maintaining that God decrees evil from the foundation of the world.

---

Ok. Let's look at this from Icon's perspective. This is the way that I'm understanding some of his ideas. It's NEVER the case that God is unloving, but it is the case that some "lesser evils for greater goods" that God does may cause us great pain and suffering, and even death. (Note to Icon: If I'm wrong about this, PLEASE correct me. Thanks.) Cool. This plays into the greater good/bigger picture argument. What this would entail is that NO "evil" that comes from God would be gratuitous. It would always have a "greater good" and loving purpose.

Would it matter to you to say that no GRATUITOUS evil comes from God? That all "evil" that comes from God is a "lesser evil for a greater good"? It might, but there's still an issue. As I've stated before, we can NEVER TELL a truly gratuitous evil from a greater good evil. That's my whole point! Look at the Zosia episode. There's absolutely NO WAY that you can say without doubt that that evil episode was completely gratuitous. No way. So saying that no "gratuitous" evil comes from God ultimately gets you very little. We still have the exact same predicament. You have immense pain and suffering being inflicted on human beings...and God could be behind it.
Sure enough, we could attribute all pain, suffering and what have you to the Devil for the sake of convenience and having an easy scapegoat. But we would not be fully true to the ambiguity inherent in our worldview.

[For Icon: I understand what you are saying...and YES from an ethicist's point of view, "good" and "evil" are INEXTRICABLY linked to the ideas of pain and suffering. This is generally what good and evil are judged by with respect to human beings. Life-affirming vs life-denying ideas. Axiology is one of my things, and I would definitely say that this is the BASIS of our ideas of human morality.]

See, Doc, I think that the problem may be that you don't want to admit the POSSIBILITY that God could be fundamentally involved in things that we call "nightmares"...LIKE the Genie atrocity and Sept. 11th. It probably bothers you to say that. Probably because of your rigorous logic...

If God is SOMEHOW using it or behind it for a "greater good", how can it be said that He is COMPLETELY working AGAINST it?? How can I say, in good conscience, for a given nightmarish situation, that God is DEFINITELY actively working AGAINST it?

And it would bother you to think that, right? But, Doc, given what we are saying here, how can you escape this? Sure, you can say that it's all for a greater good and loving end, but this is little more than what CALVINISTS end up saying. And what this means is that the argument of your version of OVT would be no different in KIND than Calvinism...at least in this area.

What's more, with the "glorification" idea, it could well be the case that the "greater good" that involves a particular evil may NOT be merely "for US" in a strict sense, but in a larger context "for GOD" and His glory that transcends our understanding. Though we accept the "us in Christ" idea where the "for God" really is "for us" as well, this would still seem problematic to some theists. (Like Miss E, no doubt. )

See, it seemed to me that the warfare worldview (as it stood before) was a big "greater good" argument, but using the EXHAUSTIVELY "for us" delineation of omnibenevolence. And, honestly, I think that this is why many people could deal with it well. Because the outcome was REALLY what was maximal and best FOR US (not necessarily for God) The greater good was OUR greater good in the strict sense. Now, in factoring in the "glorification" principle, this is not the case. Things work out great as a whole for the worldview, but those who like the exhaustively "for us" delineation of omnibenevolence will have a hissy-fit when it comes to particular evils.

You know me, Doc. My whole thing is inner consistency. If we are going to use some ideas, then we need to be as consistent as we possibly can with those ideas, if we are to be integrous and intellectually honest. So, this is as strong as I think it can get, IF we are going to accept the "God's glory" idea...

Gratuitous evil never comes from God. Any "evil" (IF WE MAY CALL IT THAT) that comes from God is a "lesser evil" that promotes a "greater good" out of loving intention. Gratuitous evil can only come from 1)chance occurences and 2)non-God free willed beings.

and...

Not ALL evil (in ANY form) comes from God.


This is as strong as it's going to get, Doc. As I've said before, in the long run, it DOESN'T become that helpful an idea anyway. You still end up with the possibility of some things that we FINITE beings call "nightmares" being either facilitated or ordained by God. You still end up with a lot more ambiguity that the current warfare worldview seem to allow. There's a lot of mystery in the big scheme of things, right? But this may soothe the mind about tying God to the notion of evil. What do you think? Can we agree on all of this?



Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Edited by - mephi2K on 02/10/2002 08:30:23 AM

quote:

---

Would it matter to you to say that no GRATUITOUS evil comes from God? That all "evil" that comes from God is a "lesser evil for a greater good"? It might, but there's still an issue. As I've stated before, we can NEVER TELL a truly gratuitous evil from a greater good evil. That's my whole point! Look at the Zosia episode. There's absolutely NO WAY that you can say without doubt that that evil episode was completely gratuitous. No way. So saying that no "gratuitous" evil comes from God ultimately gets you very little. We still have the exact same predicament. You have immense pain and suffering being inflicted on human beings...and God could be behind it.
Sure enough, we could attribute all pain, suffering and what have you to the Devil for the sake of convenience and having an easy scapegoat. But we would not be fully true to the ambiguity inherent in our worldview.

[For Icon: I understand what you are saying...and YES from an ethicist's point of view, "good" and "evil" are INEXTRICABLY linked to the ideas of pain and suffering. This is generally what good and evil are judged by with respect to human beings. Life-affirming vs life-denying ideas. Axiology is one of my things, and I would definitely say that this is the BASIS of our ideas of human morality.]

See, Doc, I think that the problem may be that you don't want to admit the POSSIBILITY that God could be fundamentally involved in things that we call "nightmares"...LIKE the Genie atrocity and Sept. 11th. It probably bothers you to say that. Probably because of your rigorous logic...

If God is SOMEHOW using it or behind it for a "greater good", how can it be said that He is COMPLETELY working AGAINST it?? How can I say, in good conscience, for a given nightmarish situation, that God is DEFINITELY actively working AGAINST it?

And it would bother you to think that, right? But, Doc, given what we are saying here, how can you escape this? Sure, you can say that it's all for a greater good and loving end, but this is little more than what CALVINISTS end up saying. And what this means is that the argument of your version of OVT would be no different in KIND than Calvinism...at least in this area.

---

quote:

---

In this way, we can still decry Zosia's suffering and know that God never intended it, whether her suffering was the result of gratuitous evil or not.

---

Sorry, man. No fair. Let's take Doc and Icon's thinking out to its logical conclusion. It COULD be the case that God INTENDED Zosia's suffering for a "greater good" purpose. It COULD have been a predetermined RESPONSE to something that God conceptualized in his infinite intelligence (like Tom wants to say about the crucifixion) We HAVE to say this. We just have to trust and KNOW that EVEN THIS predetermination of human suffering was made from God's loving heart in the context of factors within creation (including God's glorification)

I'm not trying to be a hardnose here. But I do want us to face all the ramifications squarely.



Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Edited by - mephi2K on 02/10/2002 09:41:31 AM

quote:

---

Sorry, man. No fair. Let's take Doc and Icon's thinking out to its logical conclusion. It COULD be the case that God INTENDED Zosia's suffering for a "greater good" purpose. It COULD have been a predetermined RESPONSE to something that God conceptualized in his infinite intelligence (like Tom wants to say about the crucifixion) We HAVE to say this. We just have to trust and KNOW that EVEN THIS predetermination of human suffering was made from God's loving heart in the context of factors within creation (including God's glorification)

---

But God's purposes were never meant to be accomplished by way of ANY kind of evil, gratuitous or otherwise. We can rest assured in that. I think we must concede that Zosia's suffering COULD HAVE BEEN a "lesser evil for the greater good" thing, but we can also know that God never wanted to be put in the situation in which he would need to choose a "lesser evil."

All right, gotta go fellowship with some believers. . .be back later.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

quote:

---

See, in my Calvinistic view, I said that God WANTED to reveal himself as these things...and therefore allowed/ordained for evil to come about. This was to be part of God's glorification intention. In essence, God not only wanted to share his divine love with others, but God ALSO wanted to reveal himself as Savior/Healer/Etc. This was part of God's PRIMARY intention, as I saw it. Doc would not say this. He would more likely say something like this:

God would have RATHER NOT have had to become a Savior. If it were up to God such that he could have created free willed beings AND remove all evil, God WOULD HAVE. All would have been complete ever-increasing love for all IF GOD COULD COMPLETELY HAVE HIS WAY.The Healer/Savior/Paraclete aspect of God emerged AGAINST God's wishes, in that God never wanted evil to emerge. At base, the self-revelation of Godself as Savior/Healer/Etc. was NOT a primary intention.

---

quote:

---

doc and meph just start in different places and both resist the tragic element in their presentations.

---

I can fully accept the tragic element in that I could (and would) say that evil is inevitable in a world populated with free willed beings. No problem with that at all. I can also accept the Adamic element, in that there is a "fall" of the ontologically distinct beings that brings in the evil. I can also, as you've stated, accept that God wanted to have creatures that are ontologically distinct from Godself, thus allowing for free willed beings. [With this, the Adamic and Theogonic myths seem inseperable philosophically] As you said, they are all quite interrelated.

Ahhhh....so I see your suggestion! I think. You suggest this possibility, as I see it:

If we were to more completely accept the "tragic" idea of the inevitability of evil's emergence, then we could say that God's possible desire to be known as Savior/Healer/Etc. was not the MAIN reason for emergence of evil. It would have happened ANYWAY. I am different from Doc in that I would say that God INTENDED on using evil this way from the beginning and was part of the reason why he created. Both Doc's issue and mine would be satisfied by recognizing that the eventual emergence of evil was inevitable when dealing with free willed beings.

This is straight cool with me, Modes. I can deal. No problem. What I'm wondering is how people will take to the idea of God actively WANTING to promote Himself in the terms of Savior/Healer/Etc. It would probably seem to some that God is capitalizing off of other people's misery. (BJS probably feels this way) I don't think that Doc will go for this idea. I think that some people will find this idea "beneath" an all-loving God's inclinations. I betcha money.

Good work, Modes! We gaining more ground!



Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

If God ordained that the child was going to be left in its diapers to have excrement eat away at its skin, do you think the parents are STILL responsible for their choice to have this happen to their child?

---

I am SO glad that you asked this question! This is part of the payoff of recognizing all the mystery. HOW WOULD YOU KNOW if this incident was ordained by God? Hmm? HOW? Like I said before, the ONLY way that you could know is if God LET you know. And if you were SURE that God did let you know that this was ordained for some mysterious purpose, WHAT COULD YOU SAY BACK TO GOD? "God, you were wrong for that"? "God, you suck"? If you were smart, you'd ask God what you can do to be in what he's doing. See my point. Let's fully USE the mystery here.



PS: Yes, I know the stuff above is a little less reason oriented. But MAN, I really want people to try to see things from MY EYES here. Step in my shoes and look around at the EXPLANATORY POWER of the whole thing. That's all I want.

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.


Edited by - mephi2K on 02/11/2002 08:58:11 AM

quote:

---

Meph, help me out, is it more accurate to call your system limited monergism or, since you do accept LFW should it be considered a limited dualism. Doc tagged you with the former, me the latter. Which fits better?

---

My view would only be considered a "monergism" in that no occurance of sin or evil could escape God's overall creational intention. (1. sharing the divine love of free willed beings and 2. revealing various aspects of Himself to His creation, like Savior, Healer, Etc.) The worst sin against God would STILL be within enabling God to fulfill his willing on some level. The view would be a "limited dualism", however, in the fact that "evil" does emerge fundamentally from free willed beings and things NOT God. There is sufficient ontological distinction between God and his sentient creations, given the existence of libertarian freedom.

In this context, your definition of sin works PERFECTLY. Turning against the Creator AFTER the "self" is recognized can legitimately be called sin. This would be AGAINST the ideal that God has set for human beings. No doubt. However, as you can see, even the sinning of the sinner enables God to reveal Himself as the SAVIOR of that sinner...thus fulfilling part of the creational intention.

Simply excellent.

_____________________________________

Modes asked:

quote:

---

what sorts of things do you think are part of the storyline that constitute "evil" and that are not a result of the tragic (necessary result of some other choice) or volitions of creatures?

---

All parts of the storyline that constitute evil (or sin) ARE a result of the tragic, in that all humans inevitably sin. With this, however, the possibility exists that God could have decided BEFORE CREATION to use a PARTICULAR evil possibility that may obtain (known to God via God's infinite intelligence) to demonstrate Himself in various ways. We must remember that Doc (and open view theism as a system) ALLOWS for the existence of God to operate in a compatibilistic manner. And what I'm saying is that, though the inevitable emergence of sin didn't come from God in a PRIMARY sense, it is possible that God would use the sinful contexts in eternally predetermined ways that have come to obtain...in order to demonstrate his delivering, saving power. For example, the Exodus account. There are significant parts where God says that HE is the one who will harden there hearts so do certain actions.

Exodus 4:21
The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

and...

Exodus 14:1-18
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites to turn back and encamp near Pi Hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea. They are to encamp by the sea, directly opposite Baal Zephon. Pharaoh will think, 'The Israelites are wandering around the land in confusion, hemmed in by the desert.' And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD." So the Israelites did this.

When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, Pharaoh and his officials changed their minds about them and said, "What have we done? We have let the Israelites go and have lost their services!" So he had his chariot made ready and took his army with him. He took six hundred of the best chariots, along with all the other chariots of Egypt, with officers over all of them. The LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, so that he pursued the Israelites, who were marching out boldly. The Egyptians-- all Pharaoh's horses and chariots, horsemen and troops-- pursued the Israelites and overtook them as they camped by the sea near Pi Hahiroth, opposite Baal Zephon.

As Pharaoh approached, the Israelites looked up, and there were the Egyptians, marching after them. They were terrified and cried out to the LORD. They said to Moses, "Was it because there were no graves in Egypt that you brought us to the desert to die? What have you done to us by bringing us out of Egypt? Didn't we say to you in Egypt, 'Leave us alone; let us serve the Egyptians'? It would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert!" Moses answered the people, "Do not be afraid. Stand firm and you will see the deliverance the LORD will bring you today. The Egyptians you see today you will never see again.

The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still." Then the LORD said to Moses, "Why are you crying out to me? Tell the Israelites to move on. Raise your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea to divide the water so that the Israelites can go through the sea on dry ground. I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them. And I will gain glory through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen. The Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I gain glory through Pharaoh, his chariots and his horsemen."

Once again, let's assume that I'm gullible enough to believe that this actually happened. Now, it's clear that the sin in this incident was a product of the human condition that was a product of the Tragic idea. However, the SPECIFIC instances of "sin" by God practically "ordaining" Pharoah and the Egyptians to oppose his OWN people may be evidence of compatibilism at work. Not only that, if we really believe that God prophesied this event to Abraham LOOOOONG before it happened, would it take that much imagination to say that God MAY have had this as a "predestined intention" if and when the Abraham thing worked out? I believe that this could have been so, given God's infinite intelligence.

Now all I do is extend this logic to OTHER events. God can use the "tragic" emergence of sin in PREDETERMINED, perhaps compatibilistic methods if and when certain things obtain. Unfortunately, we don't know for sure what the CIRCUMSTANCES of these type of instances will include OR even when these things take place...unless God, through whatever means, informs us. This adds considerable ambiguity as far as God's action, but not necessarily with our REACTIONS.


______________________________________

I think you and I are tracking pretty cool, Modes. The main problem is in my saying that God WANTED evil to emerge via his creational intention. That's where Doc, BJS, Mag and others will have problems with me. I'm sure of it. It's one thing to say that sin and evil were inevitable. It's another thing to say that God WANTED sin and evil for his creational purposes. They'd rather say that the emergence of sin was a NECESSARY EVIL that God had to "put up with", not something that God was BANKING ON. To them, this probably makes God look "evil"...and taking this to the level of PARTICULAR EVIL ACTS possibly being predetermined by God REALLY gets on their nerves.

I don't know if there will be any reconcilation for that. But this is why I advocate that they try the idea for the explanatory potential. I think it does a LOT for the whole thing.

Thanks for all the good work, Modes.




PS: For all, I'm ALSO going through all my emails at the same time as I'm doing this. So, you'll be hearing from me soon. (I'll be here awhile) Sheesh, I won't let it pile up like this NO MO'!! (YES, I said "NO MO'")

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.


Edited by - mephi2K on 02/11/2002 1:43:18 PM

quote:

---

I think you and I are tracking pretty cool, Modes. The main problem is in my saying that God WANTED evil to emerge via his creational intention. That's where Doc, BJS, Mag and others will have problems with me. I'm sure of it. It's one thing to say that sin and evil were inevitable. It's another thing to say that God WANTED sin and evil for his creational purposes. They'd rather say that the emergence of sin was a NECESSARY EVIL that God had to "put up with", not something that God was BANKING ON. To them, this probably makes God look "evil"...and taking this to the level of PARTICULAR EVIL ACTS possibly being predetermined by God REALLY gets on their nerves.

I don't know if there will be any reconcilation for that. But this is why I advocate that they try the idea for the explanatory potential. I think it does a LOT for the whole thing.

---

Here's the deal. Now correct me if I am wrong, any of you, but if GOD wants event x to emerge and GOD'S creational objectives are the definition of "good" and "glorious" etc. then we CANNOT say that x is evil. At least not by my definition of evil as "against God's cretional objectives". We can say that event x is tragic, as a necessary result, a lesser good or even an evil that serves a higher good, but we cannot truly call x evil. Meph, aren't you saying that GOD WANTED us to experience adversity and recognize that only God could get us out of it? This adversity, if it is of God, will be percieved as evil by us, but God knows that it is necessary. Just as necessary as the potter releasing the pot from her hand in my analogy above. Right? I am just pressing the logic of saying that "God wanted evil" is incoherent if "evil" is defined as against God's creational objectives. God many have wanted adversity, or conflicts of interest, or danger, or the feeling of "lostness" or whathaveyou, but this is not a contradiction as the statement "God wanted evil" is. By "evil" Meph, don't you mean "evil" to us, as we experience it?

In fact, the only true way to say that "God willed evil" would be to say that God willed beings who would (could, for the overly optimistic ) choose against God's creational objectives. Doesn't evil (ontologically speaking) by definition HAVE to be over and against the good (as defined by the Creator)? This can only be done indirectly. Meaning, the creation must in some sense be released from God's hand (ontologically differentiated). And in fact, that is precisely what we are ALL arguing for. But saying this (this version of "God willed evil") can be subordinated to the phrase God willed "a gift to the Son which was itself a dynamic bride who participates in its own constitution." In this way, the value of the LFW dynamic makes for a radical adventure for God, an "adversary" (the creation as radically/ontologically other) which God nevertheless is committed to reconciling with, not only that, but to communing with eternally. The ADVENTURE is a part of the design of the Creation.

Doc cannot say that "God willed evil" because it is logically impossible as doc concieves it (according to God's essense).

Modes cannot say "God willed evil" because it is logically impossible according to the way I concieve of the criterion of sin/evil (God as criterion for these creates a category error in attribution).

Meph must render coherent the statement "God wills evil" such that it means something more than "offensive toward human subjectivity."

Isn't it enough to say that God releases us from God's hand, and that God did this knowingly, and that this means subjective evil for us? This "evil" is surely related to objective structures but if the criterion is truly God, then if God intended it, it cannot be evil. God could even have intended the specific events you mentioned, but the REASON God intended these things has its higher good either in our redemption, or more directly in God's glory. Either way, it was not evil.

True?

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Edited by - ModesofThought on 02/11/2002 2:36:15 PM

quote:

---

Doc cannot say that "God willed evil" because it is logically impossible as doc concieves it (according to God's essense).

Modes cannot say "God willed evil" because it is logically impossible according to the way I concieve of the criterion of sin/evil (God as criterion for these creates a category error in attribution).

Meph must render coherent the statement "God wills evil" such that it means something more than "offensive toward human subjectivity."

---

Exactly. I'm sure Mephi will offer us something challenging to chew on.

In your last couple of posts, Modes, it sounded to me like you were close to advocating what I was trying to get at with Rom. 8 (creation's being "subject to futility"), i.e., there was enough wrong with creation (via Satan's presence in it) to provide all we needed to come to terms with our finiteness and ontological distance (and need) of God. My point was that our coming to terms with our finitenss and need of God, need even to trust God, cannot in itself require sin/evil for the very reasons you give.

If you guys think I'm optimistic, please tell my wife so. She thinks I'm hopelessly pessimistic.


Tom (Puddleglump)


Edited by - TGB on 02/11/2002 3:43:20 PM

quote:

---

Isn't it enough to say that God releases us from God's hand, and that God did this knowingly, and that this means subjective evil for us? This "evil" is surely related to objective structures but if the criterion is truly God, then if God intended it, it cannot be evil. God could even have intended the specific events you mentioned, but the REASON God intended these things has its higher good either in our redemption, or more directly in God's glory. Either way, it was not evil.

---

Meph can say "God willed evil" because he can say that "evil" is defined as creation against God's IDEAL of sentient God-centeredness or peaceful relations as seen in Christ. In other words, we've got to think on TWO LEVELS here. To me, this works out well in saying how a person under any type of compatibilistic force can be judged as "evil" EVEN THOUGH certain evidence leads on to believe that the evil action may have been "superintended" after a fashion by God. God's creational intention is fulfilled in that an opportunity has been created for God to reveal Godself in a particular way. However, God's IDEAL for creation has been violated in that the sentient beings and/or circumstances involved in the evil are not acting in God-centered, peaceful ways as is seen in Christ.

Example: Let's say that God predetermines that Act X will obtain, given situation Y obtains. Act X entails Person Z doing something compatibilistically that is NON-IDEAL, given God's ideals for human behavior. This is predominately done so that God may have an opportunity to reveal Godself in a certain way in Situation Y. In looking at God's creational intentions, we cannot say that Person Z doing Act X is AGAINST the creational intention. If we define "sin" or "evil" specifically that way, they cannot exist. However, we can say that Person Z doing Act X is against the God's proclaimed IDEAL for human behavior. Thus defined, we CAN say that Person Z is "sinning" or doing an "evil" act.

Biblical thought: Even though it's obvious that God INCITED Pharoah to act in non-ideal ways with God's people for God's purposes of glorification, we can still consistently that Pharoah's activities were "evil" or "sinful".

Does this make sense now, Modes?



PS: Explanatory Power, baby...

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.


Edited by - mephi2K on 02/11/2002 4:04:56 PM

quote:

---

In your last couple of posts, Modes, it sounded to me like you were close to advocating what I was trying to get at with Rom. 8 (creation's being "subject to futility"), i.e., there was enough wrong with creation (via Satan's presence in it) to provide all we needed to come to terms with our finiteness and ontological distance (and need) of God. My point was that our coming to terms with our finitenss and need of God, need even to trust God, cannot in itself require sin/evil for the very reasons you give.

---

quote:

---

This is not formally evil unless it is volitionally in SPITE of God's intentions regardless of the "level" of that divine intention.

---

Our issue is seen quite easily. You want to ground the definition of evil as "going against God" in the ULTIMATE sense. In other words, it must deal specifically with the ULTIMATE ORIGIN of the "going against" rather than whether or not the "going against" merely exists. Surely, you see that this is just you taking the libertarian free will thing and making that the ULTIMATE SEAT of all DESIGNATION of evil. In other words, if the "evil" is fulfilling ANY TYPE of divine function at it's base (not just being used as Doc would claim), then it cannot be considered "technically evil." This sentence gives it away for me:

quote:

---

Meph's Biblical thought: Even though it's obvious that God INCITED Pharoah to act in non-ideal ways with God's people for God's purposes of glorification, we can still consistently that Pharoah's activities were "evil" or "sinful".

Modes: agreed, but I think you will see at this point that only to the extent that Pharoah was volitionally responsible would I call it "techinically evil".

---

I suppose this goes back to the compatibilistic view of freedom vs libertarian free will. While I am constructing a way to say that PREDETERMINED "evil" or compatibilistic acts really CAN count as being "evil" in a consistent way, you want to say:

Nope. What we want is a fully LIBERTARIAN designation for evil...and the "tragic" aspect gives us that. Why go any further?

If you want to do it like that, I suppose that you can. But, to me, it gets problematic, because you will have people taking this to a nominalistic conclusion that "evil" TRULY doesn't exist to God in the ultimate sense. That's not helpful OR precise. Moreover, personally, I find it important to deal with the idea because I'm into axiology. In other words, I not just trying to deal with the ultimate SOURCE or RESULT of the act. I am also trying to factor in the NATURE of the act itself. This is an attempt to BALANCE and reconcile the aretic and deontic aspects of all moral acts whether compatibilistically initiated or not.

So, perhaps, what really separates us is that I am willing to go a little further for more specificity for axiological reasons...while you don't find it particularly important to do so.

What do you think?




Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Edited by - mephi2K on 02/12/2002 1:49:10 PM

quote:

---

I suppose this goes back to the compatibilistic view of freedom vs libertarian free will. While I am constructing a way to say that PREDETERMINED "evil" or compatibilistic acts really CAN count as being "evil" in a consistent way, you want to say:

Nope. What we want is a fully LIBERTARIAN designation for evil...and the "tragic" aspect gives us that. Why go any further?

If you want to do it like that, I suppose that you can. But, to me, it gets problematic, because you will have people taking this to a nominalistic conclusion that "evil" TRULY doesn't exist to God in the ultimate sense. That's not helpful OR precise. Moreover, personally, I find it important to deal with the idea because I'm into axiology. In other words, I not just trying to deal with the ultimate SOURCE or RESULT of the act. I am also trying to factor in the NATURE of the act itself. This is an attempt to BALANCE and reconcile the aretic and deontic aspects of all moral acts whether compatibilistically initiated or not.

---

quote:

---

Modes cannot say "God willed evil" because it is logically impossible according to the way I concieve of the criterion of sin/evil (God as criterion for these creates a category error in attribution).

Meph must render coherent the statement "God wills evil" such that it means something more than "offensive toward human subjectivity."

---

What I thought this meant was that I had come up with a way that EVIL could exist AT ALL, while holding to my ideas about God's creational intentions. It seemed to me that you were saying that, given my ideas, evil could only exist as OFFENSE to human subjectivity...ultimately meaning that evil had no real basis in the Absolute. This is where I started from.

Ok. Now if we end up taking a VERY nominalistic approach what we end up saying is that all of God's actions are X (whatever X may be) by definition of being God's acts, right? What this implicitly asserts is that things are structured logically such that it can never be the case the God's actions are ~X (which is why Doc would talk about the problem of distinction) I felt that this is what you were, in essence, saying. You said:

quote:

---

I am just pressing the logic of saying that "God wanted evil" is incoherent if "evil" is defined as against God's creational objectives. God many have wanted adversity, or conflicts of interest, or danger, or the feeling of "lostness" or whathaveyou, but this is not a contradiction as the statement "God wanted evil" is.

---

and...

quote:

---

This "evil" is surely related to objective structures but if the criterion is truly God, then if God intended it, it cannot be evil. God could even have intended the specific events you mentioned, but the REASON God intended these things has its higher good either in our redemption, or more directly in God's glory. Either way, it was not evil.

---

In other words, if evil is defined as against God's creational objectives, and NOTHING can be against God's creational objectives, then evil, by definition, CANNOT exist. We could call reasonably these things all "GOOD" just because they are God's acts. This is straight nominalistic.

It didn't seem to me that you were saying that evil couldn't exist because all evil was ULTIMATELY a "greater good" That would be another line of thinking. It seemed to me that you were speaking of HOW we define evil and the implication from that. Do you now see how, in taking your ideas, one could say that evil doesn't really exist?

________________________________________

quote:

---

Frankly, I am not interested in ethics per se so that does reduce the level of commitment to sorting these things out to a fine degree. I have come to distrust ethical systems and, as naive as it may sound, simply try to do discernment and if that doesn't come clear, then a situational ethics approach. It surprises me that you think you have the resources to assess various aspects of of moral actions if you grant that the criterion for said "morality" is not completely within our reach. (And of course, as I nominalist, I'd have to say that the criterion is WELL beyond our reach, lest we claim to know the mind of God) How far is too far to run with this stuff for you?

---

Now you're getting into what Semeia and Icon have talked about a lot...and why I say that there ultimately cannot be a theodicy. Whenever we talk about theodicy, we HAVE to speak in axiological terms. If we didn't, there wouldn't be a theodicy issue at all. My view above is primarily for THOSE purposes. Now, if you don't care about it, then surely, you could go about it the other way.

How far it too far? When, like you would say, the adequacy and applicability is overshadowed by the coherence of the whole thing. It's like this. Though I believe that Icon and Semeia are pretty much on point about the whole "evil/good" thing, the bottom line is that thinking ethically is ENDEMIC to human nature. That's how the whole thing of theodicy came up in the first place. And some people will not let go of that so easily. (Almost like how many OVTers feel about the nature of MORAL RESPONSIBILITY in the face of God's various actions in the world) I figured that my take deals squarely with this. Again some people may feel it goes TOO deep. And for those people a slightly higher "level" would be adequate. But that's not for everyone.

And think about it, Modes. If you really look at the ideas I'm having, do you see some type of similarity with the Calvinistic "two wills" idea? AHA!

Blessings, homie


Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.