quote:

---

I am still stuck on the idea that evil, if it is to be a meaningful concept with an absolute point of reference, must be the polar opposite of Good and the good must be defined by God directly somehow. Either by will or essense. I am working with "by will" so inevitably, evil must also be by will (but not God's). If it is not, then it is a=-a on God's part. I don't by evil as the mere corruption of absense of good. Evil is real and really against God. Actual power to the contrary.

---

Hmm.. I don't think we going to agree here then. I recognize the plausibility of "power to the contrary" and it's implications. But it's not a necessity for me to GROUND my defintion of "evil" in those ONLY those terms. For you, it is. I use nuances you find utterly unnecessary because of this divide. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree here.

What you think?



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

quote:

---

Modes said:

quote:

---

I am still stuck on the idea that evil, if it is to be a meaningful concept with an absolute point of reference, must be the polar opposite of Good and the good must be defined by God directly somehow. Either by will or essense. I am working with "by will" so inevitably, evil must also be by will (but not God's). If it is not, then it is a=-a on God's part. I don't by evil as the mere corruption of absense of good. Evil is real and really against God. Actual power to the contrary.

---

Hmm.. I don't think we going to agree here then. I recognize the plausibility of "power to the contrary" and it's implications. But it's not a necessity for me to GROUND my defintion of "evil" in those ONLY those terms. For you, it is. I use nuances you find utterly unnecessary because of this divide. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree here.

What you think?



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

---

Deal. I still love ya man! (cyber-hug) Plus other threads are keeping me busy

"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

quote:

---

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.

---

Ok. Notice something. Let's say that I am a libertarian free willer to the full. And I define evil as I have above. Does it work? It would seem so. This is the idea that you gave with the potter thing. Now, let's say that I am a COMPATIBILIST. And I define evil as I have above. Does it work? It would seem to do so, given the compatibilistic assumptions that I have. It makes sufficient differentiation between "evil" and "good" while recongnizing the higher "monergism" at work.

Now, look closely at MY view. Remember how I described how it can be seen as monergistic on one hand and a limited dualism on the other? How would my definition of "evil" work for me? Pretty darn good, I think. I think it doesn't take a NECESSARY stance on LFW for the sake of "good/evil" discussion...and at the same time it gives the requisite nuances for compatibilists not to fall into a Clarkian nominalistic view where "evil" truly CANNOT exist. See, we have to remember. Though I grant the genuine possibility that libertarian free will exists, I don't die OFF for it. Therefore, it pleases me to have a definition that I feel can work BOTH WAYS, given whichever suppositions one takes. With respect to the ethics discussions involved, it would seem to fit the bill under both suppositions consistently. This is not intellectually duplicity at all. This is crafting a definition of "evil" that BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE can agree on, while staying consistent with their suppositions.

Whew...maybe this will help.



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

quote:

---

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.

and...

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.

---

By and large, from what I see, Modes and I are in agreement on...

1) there being a limited dualism in that LFW exists.

2) the creational intention of God incorporating an "adventure" as part of the Creation.

3) God ultimately is the absolute referent of the ideals as well the concepts of "good" and "evil"

4) The importance of recognizing the "tragic" nature of evil.

5) It is GENUINELY POSSIBLE that one of God's creational intentions was to reveal Himself as Healer/Savior/Miracle Worker/etc.


This essentially is all that is necessary. The real difference between us is twofold:

1) Modes is firmly going to define "evil" in terms of LFW and opposition to God's willing in EVERY sense...such that it can be no other way. I believe that LFW can exist, but that it is not necessary to define "evil" explicitly in terms of it. I define "evil" such that Modes' perspective can be taken IF one chooses to do so. If one chooses to be a compatabilist, my definition of evil will work well there too, GIVEN compatibilist presuppositions.

2) For ethical discussion, I don't take the "greater good" argument as subsuming the EVIL inherent in a given action. In other words, in my mind, just because a lesser evil is used for a greater good doesn't change the "evil" nature of the act itself. This is, again, the aretic vs deontic thing. I apply this to the "specific events" that Modes talks about, given how I define "evil" in #1. Modes (and probably some others) wouldn't feel this necessary.



I don't want people to lose track of the major thing I'm advocating though. That the creational intentions of God could have included these two things:

1) God wanted to have free willed beings with which to share his divine love

2) God wanted to reveal himself in MANY different capacities, INCLUDING that of Savior/Healer/Miracle Worker, etc.

...wherein God would get glory in both these actions.


From what I'm gathering, both Modes and myself are saying that this is possible and workable.

quote:

---

So you are saying God doesn't have to hold to or act according to God's own ideal.

---

quote:

---

If this wasn’t the case, I doubt so many Bible believing people would have asserted it. But even to say that God was certain evil would come about – as I’ve consistently admited, though TGB has got me wondering -- it doesn’t follow that any PARTICULAR evil was part of the plan.

---

It's not NECESSARY that any particular evil was part of the plan, but it must be admitted that it COULD be the case. No one can deny that it's possible that God did ordain a PARTICULAR evil as part of his plan for glorification. That's all I want acknowledged.



Doc:

quote:

---

Meph: The ONLY thing that I see that's messing this up for people is the EXISTENTIAL STRAIN that it causes people to consider that God could SPECIFICALLY WANT glory from being a Savior/Healer/Etc.

Doc: No. Its suggesting that there is no particular evil that we can with total confidence say God is AGAINST. The move from "God created the world with the goal of glorifying himself" to "any particular evil may be part of God’s self-glorification" is a BIG jump. The first is biblically warranted. The second is not.

---

The jump is not as big as you think, Doc. Remember we're dealing with the logical implications here. Do you really mean to tell me that their exists a particular evil event that you can know FOR ABSOLUTE CERTAIN that God is not behind ultimately, without God revealing it to you? I'd love to see how you work that.



Doc:

quote:

---

Meph: 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

Doc: No problem… so long as you grant that the particular evil a) was known and anticipated as a POSSIBILITY and b) its origin is a will other than God’s.

---

This doesn't incorporate all that I want it to. I am saying that the possibility exists that God could have PREDETERMINED that a particular "evil" possibility will obtain...IF other things obtain...in order to demonstrate Himself.




Doc:

quote:

---

Meph: 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.

Doc: No problem… so long as you grant that a) the particular evil is not ordained, even if God’s perfectly anticipated means of using it for his glory IS; and b) our default in reacting to particular evils should be to resist it, unless God directs us otherwise.

---

Your a) is exactly what I'm saying. "predetermined, pehaps compatibilistic methods" I would agree with your b) and I think I specified why.




Doc:

quote:

---

Meph: 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.

Doc: If sin was inevitable in creation, yet God created it, he clearly wanted the KIND of world in which sin would inevitably occur. I mainly object to any claim that God wanted ANY PARTICULAR sin to occur.

---

I don't see how you can object to this logically. Modes said this as well.




Doc:

quote:

---

Meph: I don't want people to lose track of the major thing I'm advocating though. That the creational intentions of God could have included these two things: 1) God wanted to have free willed beings with which to share his divine love 2) God wanted to reveal himself in MANY different capacities, INCLUDING that of Savior/Healer/Miracle Worker, etc.

Doc: I am inclined to grant both of these premises. But with Modes, I don’t see why you would have to, or want to, assert the possibility of "compatibilistic" evil acts in order to hold them.

---

That's because like Modes, you define evil more in terms of LFW that I do.


Cool stuff, Doc.



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

Edited by - mephi2K on 02/13/2002 9:59:45 PM

Edited by - mephi2K on 02/13/2002 10:00:26 PM