 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 5:14 PM (GMT -6) |   | Message
Wislawa
04/26/01 12:22 AM
Deconstructing Warfare Theodicy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deconstructing Warfare Theodicy: Placing the Love/Evil dichotomy under erasure
To preface this I would like to say that I really don’t know what I’m talking about. That said…
What is the difference between a Loving God and an Evil God? Let’s try this thought experiment: Imagine two counterfactual worlds. In one world there exists a loving God, in the other there exists an evil God. Yet both worlds are exactly the same. They share the same history, in fact it is the same as our actual world, the share the same people, exactly the same, and so forth. If you were placed in one of these two worlds you would not be able to discern which one you were in. What we have is two identical worlds, yet two worlds that we would feel are somehow radically different. But where shall we locate this difference if not in the worlds themselves? The difference must lie at right angles to the world—it must lie in the difference between the Gods, the difference between love and evil. But what is the difference between love and evil? Ultimately the answer is not much if any at all. After all we can conceive of two worlds in which having a loving God and having an evil God does not make an ounce of difference.
To preface this part I would like to say that I haven’t a clue as to what I’m talking about when it comes to post-structuralist theories. But then again most people who write secondary texts about them don’t either so…
Post-structuralism undoes opposites (like love/evil) through the concept of differance (with an ‘a’) by an economy of deferment-difference. [Someone correct me if you know better than I do] Terms get effaced because they always already embody their opposite in part—that is to say love embodies the trace of evil and vice versa. Well I think that the ‘Omnipresence’ thread shows how this happens with the love/evil dichotomy within the warfare theodicy. To prove my point I will provide my own very true concrete example much like the ‘Omnipresence’ thread did.
People Magazine writes: “To most, the correct response would have been obvious. When, in 1997, David Cash peered over a stall in the women’s bathroom of a Primm, Nev., casino and found his friend Jeremy Strohmeyer assaulting 7-year-old Sherrice Iverson, Cash should have stopped Strohmeyer or, at the very least, alerted authorities. But Cash, now 20, did neither. He left the scene and listened passively when Srohmeyer later confessed he had killed the little girl. And while Strohmeyer, 20, was arrested, pleaded guilty and, in October, was sentenced to life in prison, Cash, who broke no law, went unpunished.”
David Cash was PRESENT when Sherrice Iverson was brutally murdered. In an interview with 60 Minutes Cash said, “Technically, I could have stopped it.” We rightly do not see anything praiseworthy about Cash’s actions on this day. But God was also present if we believe in omnipresence. God too watched her get murdered. What is the difference between God and Cash?
First of all Cash is obviously not omnibenevolent. But why assume that God was? After all God’s actions were indistinguishable from Cash’s actions. Second perhaps God could not have stopped it. This is what the warfare worldview says. God was somehow bound by a covenant of non-interference with Strohmeyer’s free will. (God places a high price on Strohmeyer’s free will but He seems quite ok with letting Iverson’s be violated.) So perhaps Cash was in a position to stop Strohmeyer but God was not. Well why was God unable to? Who was stopping him? Isn’t He omnipotent? If someone has the power to bind His actions does not that threaten this omnipotence? No, according to the warfare worldview, because it was God himself who bound himself. He holds the key to the chains which keep him from stopping Strohmeyer. Have I missrepresented the warfare view (which, by the way, I also hold)? God is bound but it is a self-binding. He was present in that bathroom just as Cash was but Cash was unbound whereas He was bound.
So what? Does this get God off the hook? I think not. This God is no more praiseworthy than Cash is. Let’s imagine Cash was self-bound. Let’s say he had handcuffed himself to another stall. He held the key in his hand as he watched Iverson’s head get smashed against the porcelain toilet. Was not he still “technically” able to stop it? Is this any worthier of praise if in his defense he points to the handcuffs and the key? Should he not have self-unbound his self-bounding for the sake of the 7-year-old girl’s life?
This to me tarnishes the omnibenevolence of God. I could only describe a God like this as evil. Yet since free will is necessary for love I must conclude that a loving God is an evil God. The terms love and evil must be effaced, each embodying the trace of the other always already deferred.
Well let me know what you think.
-Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Mephi2K
04/26/01 5:24 AM
Meph Joins The Deconstruction Crew
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note to Reader: WARNING! The following stuff is VERY philosophical, deep, and involved. If you don't feel like diggin' in yer heels, I'd skip it. If you DO want to read this, grab some snacks , get comfortable, and prepare for a headache. LOL. Proceed if you dare...
*******************************************
Wislawa,
I am SO feeling you on this. Check it out.
You said:
"What is the difference between a Loving God and an Evil God? Let’s try this thought experiment: Imagine two counterfactual worlds. In one world there exists a loving God, in the other there exists an evil God. Yet both worlds are exactly the same. They share the same history, in fact it is the same as our actual world, the share the same people, exactly the same, and so forth. If you were placed in one of these two worlds you would not be able to discern which one you were in. What we have is two identical worlds, yet two worlds that we would feel are somehow radically different. But where shall we locate this difference if not in the worlds themselves? The difference must lie at right angles to the world—it must lie in the difference between the Gods, the difference between love and evil. But what is the difference between love and evil? Ultimately the answer is not much if any at all. After all we can conceive of two worlds in which having a loving God and having an evil God does not make an ounce of difference.
Meph:
What you have basically talked about here is the bane of some atheistic naturalists existences': the question of the relevance of metaphysical discussion. The point is that we could talk about a good Goddess who is trying to do ALL the good she can...or we could talk about an evil God who is trying to do ALL the evil he can...and none of it would make any difference. The world is what the world is. It would be a distinction without any real difference, pragmatically speaking (This is found often in the American philosophy of Pragmatism) It's like debating whether of not it's subatomic fairies or subatomic elves that make flowers open. The entire discussion is virtually meaningless.
This is truly something to consider. I find this to be somewhat of a fair critique of any type of metaphysics. (Some of my peeps thinks metaphysics is a complete waste of time because of the thought above.) However, I'm inclined to say that any theologian is MANDATED to have some sort of metaphysic, especially if that theologian's deity is considered, for whatever reason, to be the Creator of all things. In this regard, metaphysics and theological reflection become one.
[Digression: This is one reason, in hindsight, I think that Tertullian's famous statement about Athens and Jerusalem was so bad. To try to separate Christian theologizing from metaphysical discussion is simply not feasible. But again, this is in hindsight.]
So, GOOD POINT, Wislawa.
****************************************************
Next, you say, at the sum of your stuff...
"This to me tarnishes the omnibenevolence of God. I could only describe a God like this as evil. Yet since free will is necessary for love I must conclude that a loving God is an evil God. The terms love and evil must be effaced, each embodying the trace of the other always already deferred."
Meph:
You hit on something very interesting. I don't know much about post-structuralism, honestly, but you have brought in a fabulous point! Example. The Tao. The Flow. Anything like these ideas. See, here's where I think some Eastern religions see what we don't see. Some Eastern religions understand that what we term good and evil are virtually necessary coorelates in some regard, when speaking about this world. "What's light without darkness" type of thing. Because of the nature of the world, with it's good and evil throughout, some Eastern thinkers may suggest that one would be HARD PRESSED to assert anything being completely good or completely evil, if for no other fact that in interacting with this world, any being would be encountering BOTH phenomena and in some way PARTICIPATING in both phenomena.
THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is one problem that I have with the concept of ontological omnibenevolence as I hear it constantly being discussed. This is my main contention. I will argue for this
For a being like Creator God to be TRULY omnibenevolent, as we are conceiving it, said God would have to be DEISTIC with respect to this universe.
Follow me close, now! We would have to say that God really can't do ANYTHING with respect to our universe in order to call him omnibenevolent in any meaningful sense. The concept of God's holiness would have to be such that God was ultimately transcendent to the point of NO real immanence. The reason why is what Wislawa just brought up. The "evil" of watching and NOT helping. From what I understand, Doc is going to try to argue, in his upcoming "Satan and the Problem of Evil", that the COMPLEXITY of the universe which God created is the very thing that exonerates God from any accusation of wrongdoing. I will show how I don't think even that may work.
Perhaps, this will give people some understanding on WHY I say that, in the ultimate sphere, God is above good and evil. Who knows?
**************************************
Lead-In Example and Discussion of the Warfare Worldview
AH, let's start with an example! Let's say that you have witnessed a brutal murder as it was happening. Because of the circumstances of your situation, there was absolutely NOTHING (I repeat) NOTHING that you could do. For what ever reason, you were completely unable to locate any authorities, shout for help or ANYTHING. If this were the case, no person in their right mind would hold you responsible for NOT stopping the murder or helping the victim. You were unable...completely. Let's use this to think up a formula for personal responsibility for preventing evil.
Personal Responsibility For Preventing Evil = Ability to Prevent (Environment) + Power To Prevent(Self)
To exonerate God the way most theologians want to, one must either show that in any given instance of evil, God either did NOT have the ability or the power to prevent it. From what I understand, Doc will be arguing that, due to the type of universe He chose to create, God lacks the ABILITY to prevent many evils because of the environment of free willed beings, but He DOES have the sheer power. The classical view of omnipotence is as follows:
Omnipotence = Unmatched Influence (Environment) + Unmatched, inexhaustible Power (Self)
What has to be denied for the Warfare Model to work is the Unmatched Influence part. In other words, the omnipotence of the warfare theodicy would be as follows:
Omnipotence = SELF LIMITED Influence (Environment) + Unmatched, inexhaustible Power (Self)
Thus the argument goes...
"Look, God has ALL power and is omnipotent. But because of the type of world he wanted to create with free willed beings, he HAD to limit his influence or "say-so" such that other beings could have genuine "say-so". So while God has unmatched, inexhaustible power, he does NOT have to INFLUENTIAL ability to unilaterally operate IN EVERY CASE. In other words, circumstances have to be JUST RIGHT for God to do certain things. Thus, we can say firmly that God is good ALL the time, and the evils that occur are NOT his fault. He cannot be held responsible because of his SELF-LIMITED influence in history."
What's a perk of this? God gets to be a UTILITARIAN. See, utilitarianism is based on the fact of LIMITATIONS. It attempt to use various means to achieve the best ends possible. Thus, we could say that God works WITHIN HIS LIMITATIONS such that He attempts to give the most people the most happiness to sentient beings and animals. Within this thought, God is able to use "evil" things to bring about a greater good. (Think of Hick's Soul-Making Theodicy) Thus, we are able to say (with a straight face) that God is constantly trying his absolute best to make the world a better place within the self-determined parameters God has set for himself and reality. Because of these parameters, it is even possible for God to employs some lesser "evils" for the prospect of "greater goods" (ie coercive behavior, though exhibited VERY few times)
Now here's the INGENIOUS nature of the warfare worldview. We could never say that all evil is gratuitous, which would ultimately cause a problem for the worldview as a whole. We could say this:
All evils that human beings witness on Earth are either:
1) Being worked on fully by God given his self-limitations...or
2) "mysterious" instrumentation for a "greater good" that we can't see
But guess what. We could never know which was which, now could we? No loose ends at all. And all of this can be stated COHERENTLY within the context of the worldview!
Now call me silly, but I think I have the philosophical underpinnings of the warfare worldview down pretty well! Doc, am I right or what? I must say that the worldview itself is pretty involved. Comprehensive. Articulate. and it almost does the job, in my opinion. But...
*******************************
Meph's Problem with the Whole Thing
Here's the problem though. 2 of them actually. And I, personally, believe that they are INSURMOUNTABLE. Remember the crux of this issue is maintaining God's OMNIBENEVOLENCE. Please don't forget that. God's omnibenevolence is the nerve center of the Warfare Worldview, as I'm understanding it.
1. We HAVE to argue that human beings possessing free will is ALL-AROUND a better existence than humans not possessing free will.
This would be hard for ANY theologian or philosopher to do. They would have to somehow prove that a world without libertarianly free human beings would be WORSE than a world without the Holocaust, the Oklahoma City Bombing, and African Slavery. I just don't see how that's possible. Remember, it's libertarian free will that is the key here. Warfare theologians say that without it, determinism or automatonism rules. Without LFW, it would be easy to assert that God could have created being who would always or at least MOSTLY choose for the good, conceivably such that we could have have existence with a LOT less evil. So, again, warfare theologians would have to argue that this is, for lack of a better term, the "best possible world"
Next...the REAL biggie!
2. We HAVE to argue that God's decision to create this universe, FULLY knowing the potential evil ramifications, was NOT ultimately self-centered or ARBITRARY.
This is the killer! It can be cogently stated that God ARBITRARILLY chose to create this universe with His self-limitations, according to what HE wanted: a relationship with free-willed beings. He simply did it because He WANTED TO do so, WITHOUT GENUINE CONSIDERATION for the creatures that he was creating. Basically the thought process could be elaborated thusly:
"Hmmm...I want to share my love with others. However, because of my omniscience, I know that there is a good chance in the realm of possibility that the vast majority of these beings will experience pain, hurt, loss, and even death. Moreover, I know that there is a good chance that many of them will disobey me and cause me untold pain. Oh, well, I'm willing to sacrifice myself for them so that at least SOME of them (hopefully most of them) will spend eternity with me. I'll risk it!"
[Digression: Some theologians try to say the universalism would justify all the evil of this world. However, they fail to realize that this would be the ULTIMATE "end justifying the means" ploy and that universalism would STILL not eliminate the idea of God not being omnibenevolent. Just thought of that.]
Some philosophers argue that a truly omnibenevolent God might not have created at ALL if that God truly knew the potential abyssmal effects of evil. If we say that God chose to actualize this reality in full cognizance of the potential dire consequences to humanity, then we could be correct in saying that God commited a AUTOCRATIC act, valuing his OWN WISHES above the ultimate well being of ALL his creatures. This seems to tacitly negate his claim of omnibenevolence. In short, one has to show how an omnibenevolent being could be COMPATIBLE with making this type of arbitrary decision.
This is SOOOOO important. If omnibenevolence is the UTMOST concern for others' well being, to the point of utter selflessness, then arbitrary decisions made specifically for the individual are NOT ALLOWABLE. I repeat, omnibenevolence PRECLUDES any type of arbitrary or autocratic thinking!
Let's go back to our first thing:
Personal Responsibility For Preventing Evil = Ability to Prevent (Environment) + Power To Prevent(Self)
In the beginning God had this...fully. He could have prevented evil by NOT CREATING at all. It's NOT like he needed anything. According to Doc's trinitarian sociality concept, God was doing just fine by himself. He had loving relationships and sociality. In knowing Himself and His purposes (plus his knowledge of all possibilities), he KNEW that sin, death, hell were viable outcomes that could radically affect his creation...but he made the choice anyway. Thus God neglected his personal responsibility for preventing evil. So, not only did God create arbitrarily according to something HE alone wanted for HIS ultimate benefit, but God is also ultimately responsible for evil on the deepest level. Thus HOW can God be omnibenevolent???
Anticipated Arguments:
Let me briefly anticipate an argument here. I don't know why, but I just sense that this will come up...
"Meph, we have children, don't we? We realize that they could possibly have problems, get sick or even die. But that doesn't stop us from having kids, now does it? So why should we have a problem with God making this decision?"
Why do we have kids? REALLY think about it. Do we have kids SOLELY because we want to bestow life on another being that THEY might enjoy themselves fully? HECK, NO! That may be part of the reason, but for the most part, we have kids for reasons of OUR OWN. We want to be parents. We want to further the family line. Etc. Etc. Remember, we are talking about omnibenevolence. Human beings are not omnibenevolent. It is a GIVEN that we will make some seemingly good decisions for primarily selfish reasons. This won't work for an omnibenevolent being. An omnibenevolent being, by definition, cannot make ANY selfish decisions. So, let's not use that...
"But Meph, we think about ourselves and consider ourselves, even in the most altruistic of activities. How is it not the same for God?"
Simple. Human altruism will always have self-interest because of our FINITENESS. Unchecked altruism will lead to what can be termed "martyrdom morality" where one literally give until it hurts all the time, to the continued detriment of the giver. This will not work for the omnibenvolent God however. Remember, God was all influential and all powerful at the beginning. So there was no possibility of martyrdom morality with God. It doesn't apply here.
Meph, what if God decided that existence was better than non-existence and ONLY on that basis created free willed beings?
Wow, that would be problematic. To argue this, one would have to argue that God, KNOWING the genuine possibility of sin, death, and even eternal punishment, considered non-existence to be WORSE than this. But isn't the very reason that theological views like conditional immortality and such exist is becuase some people think that non-existence is PREFERABLE to certain levels of suffering? Would you argue that the existence and torture of little Jenie was PREFERRABLE to her non-existence? Hmmm...
*******************************************
I've said all this to say this. The ONLY way to justify God as being completely omnibenevolent is to say the following:
God created the universe SOLELY because he concluded life was better than non-existence for other potential beings. In other words, he created beings FOR those beings. He didn't create because he simply WANTED to or being HE wanted relationship with others. God WAS not omniscient in the beginning, therefore he didn't know the utter depths to which human depravity could sink (ie the Holocaust, Stalin, etc). Moreover, because of God's transcendence, he CANNOT have any type of interaction with the universe. For all intents and purposes, he may as well not exist.
This is the only way that I find it logically feasible to say that God is ontologically omnibenevolent...and make it stick.
[NOTE: This is a positive in my book for PROCESS theology. By positing a NECESSARY God-world relation, they completely DODGE both of these bullets. Because the world is NECESSARY for God to become, there was no arbirtrary choice, nor must we be concerned about any "best possible world" Remember when I said that I saw process theology as more coherent and consistent?]
Because this view above is NOT possible to be reconciled with the Biblical view of God, I am forced to state that God is above good and evil, and NOT ontologically omnibenevolent. (Notice that denying omnibenevolence does NOT mean that God is not good or that God is not loving.) Moreover, I am inclined to reject the Warfare Worldview on this same basis.
******************************************
This is my deconstruction of the Warfare Theodicy as I see it. It's a work in progress and probably won't be finished until I read and analyze Doc's finished work. Peace out...
Blessings,
Meph
PS; To all praying people, thank you so much! Stuff is still up in the air. I will keep you all posted though!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
04/26/01 5:07 PM
To Sometimes Ally Mephi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some observations: Both of us have problems with how the warfare theodicy attempts to defend God’s omnibenevolence. But you do not seem to have invested yourself or staked yourself on God’s omnibenevolence since you do not believe he possesses it, whereas I have staked myself on it.
Your problems with the warfare view have pushed your position closer to a more Augustinian view of God (I still don’t quite know what to call your view since it is quite individual but is ‘Augustinian’ fair?) Whereas my problems with the warfare view have pushed me towards a qualified atheistic/warfare hybrid view when it comes to evil. We share the same doubts about how sucessful the warfare view is at preserving God’s omnibenevolence but we have dealt with this in radically different ways. For me everything still hangs on somehow preserving God’s omnibenevolence even if this means becoming an atheist (I love coming to really sound conclusions that sound nonsensical )
Your comparison to Eastern philosophy is only correct on a superficial level. Something like the Ying/Yang paradigm is actually different from what I was trying to say. In Ying/Yang nothing is absolutely good or absolutely evil, every evil has a little good in it and every good a little evil. Deconstruction does not state this. Rather it states that there are structural flaws in semiology. The way that signifiers relate to the signified is ultimately only a matter of the difference between sings. Love and what love signifies is only such to the degree that it is different from all other signs such as evil and what evil signifies. Deconstruction shows that when sings are put to the ultimate test—when their strength is tried—each sing breaks down. In the end every time someone writes ‘love’ they could just as easily write ‘evil,’ the two become interchangeable. The sign gets erased, effaced, yet preserved because it is necessary. Derrida writes in “Of Grammatology” that,
“The reassuring evidence within which Western tradition had to organize itself and must continue to live would therefore be as follows: the order of the signified is never contemporary, it at best the subtly discrepant inverse or parallel—discrepant by the time of a breath—from the order of the signifier. And the sing must be the unity of a heterogeneity, since the signified (sense or thing, noeme or reality) is not in itself a signifier, a trace: in any case is not constituted in its sense by its relationship with a possible trace. The formal essence of the signified is presence, and the privilege of its proximity to the logos as phone is the privilege of presence. This is the inevitable response as soon as one asks: ‘what is the sign?,’ that is to say, when one submits the sign to the question of essence, to the ‘ti esti.’ The ‘formal essence’ of the sing can only be determined in terms of presence. One cannot get around that response, except by challenging the very form of the question and beginning to think that the sign is that ill-named thing [‘is’ and ‘thing’ are both effaced in this sentence, crossed out like Heidegger’s ‘being.’ If I was a pro at html like you are I would figure out how to do that on the computer], the only one, that escapes the instituting question of philosophy: ‘what is…?’”(18-19)
So when the sign pair love/evil gets put under stress the two become interchangeable. Like the God of the warfare worldview whose omnibenevolence is intact yet we can only describe such a God as evil. The question for you and I is what is so attractive about the competitive views? Do you really see something more attractive in Deism or Augustinianism? Do I really see anything more attractive in atheism? The warfare worldview may be unsatisfactory but look at the options! We either have an omnibenevolent evil God in warfare, or in your case an evil evil God, or in my case an omnibenevolent God who doesn’t exist.
Finally…You said: “Wow, that would be problematic. To argue this, one would have to argue that God, KNOWING the genuine possibility of sin, death, and even eternal punishment, considered non-existence to be WORSE than this. But isn't the very reason that theological views like conditional immortality and such exist is becuase some people think that non-existence is PREFERABLE to certain levels of suffering? Would you argue that the existence and torture of little Jenie was PREFERRABLE to her non-existence? Hmmm...”
Me says: I couldn’t agree more. This is why I'll never have kids. “And I thought the dead, who have already died, more fortunate than the living, who are still alive; but better than both is the one who has not yet been, and has not seen the evil deeds that are done under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 4:2-3). Why don’t pro-lifers use this verse when they picket? One catch-22 about free will is that God violates it when he created us with it. I don’t want it. I didn’t want to be born either, but here I am. And I can’t avoid the consequences of suicide now that I am here so that doesn’t look like a good option either. Maybe its time for another viewing of “It’s a Wonderful Life” or something?
I really am a romantic
–Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
writerdad
04/26/01 10:52 PM
RE: Deconstructing Warfare Theodicy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will do my best with what I have...
Yancey in his book, "The Jesus I Never Knew," makes this statement about the temptation, "The temptation unmasked Satan, while God remained masked. If you are God, said Satan, then dazzle me. Act like God should act. Jesus replied, Only God makes those decisions, therefore I do nothing at your command." Later Yancey, states, "Beginning with the temptation, Jesus showed a reluctance to bend the rules of earth."
Evil seems so multi-facited (mispelled, sorry) that one, many times simply doesn't know where to start. But let me use Yancey's words as a starting point.
First, I think there are no more truer words of Jesus than this: the poor you will have with you always. As Douglas Connelly shows in his book, Miracles, they are rare and, for whatever reason, God doesn't do them much. Look through history. God seldom rescues people. Get use to it. The things I've learned from scripture that are sure are few, but one of them is this: I believe God tells me he loves me, to trust him, but he won't always be explaining himself to me. He's God. That, perhaps, is the whole point. I don't have a problem with God's goodness because I center on Christ and that is the ultimate goodness. That is where our faith should be focused, and our trust as well.
Second, Yancey's second statement is very valid. I think God likes the rules and laws that govern the world he made. Even with the sin. And I think God doesn't like to violate them.
But the third point I would like to make is perhaps the most crucial, as I see it. Determinisn, in my mind, most harms Christian's is in the area evil because, in forming a belief that God has a plan for every minute detail, it allows Christians one, to believe that what is really important is to be in line with "God's will," no matter how inane or evil that "will" may be and allows Christian the wonder of not taking responsibility for the world that God gave them.
Why should God do a damn thing when we don't? In your above story, one of the prime reasons that teenager had access to that child was because her parents allowed her to be unsupervised in an adult place for several hours. If they had been watching the child it would not have happened!
We should start realizing that this is OUR world, the world God expects us to live in godly and to take responsibility for it. If we do not take responsibility for the evil in the world, why should God? And where does one draw the line? SHould God take us out of bad jobs, just because we don't like them? Should God take people out of our lives that we don't like, because they bother us? Perhaps we should just sit at home and let God do everything!
There is evil in the world. But the evil came by us and its our responsibility to fight it. To assume God should take care of it, is to assume we don't have to do anything about it. God will redeem this world, but while we live in it, its our world.
Peter Krefft (mispell, sorry again), told of a cartoon on his door that showed two turtles sitting together. One said, "I always wanted to ask God why he didn't do anything about all the evil in the world." The second one says, "I did too, but I was afraid he would ask me the same question."
This is our world. I don't think we should expect anything from God that we are not willing to do ourselves...John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
04/26/01 11:07 PM
RE: RE: Deconstructing Warfare Theodicy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a short note to Writerdad.
You seem to be arguing for a melioristic universe. That's cool. However, the point is this. Is a melioristic worldview consistent with an omnibenevolent God? I have argued above to say no. I think that's the main point that Wislawa and I are noting, though we are coming from different angles.
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
04/26/01 11:09 PM
RE: To Sometimes Ally Mephi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to change the world...start BY having kids...the world is evil, but the world is a little less so because my children are in it. One of the truly tremendous gifts of God are children...if we sit and do nothing but bemoan the bad state of the world we might as well just give up...but I, for one, believe that everyday we should be grateful to God for this life...for children and the sun shining and the tremendous amount of great joy there is in the world. There will always be things we do not understand...but if all we see is the problems and the questions and the confusion we will never see God.
Elton Trueblood: "In many areas the gospel, instead of taking away people's burdens, actually adds to them...
Occasionally we talk of out Christianity as something that solves problems, and there is a sense in which it does. Long before it does so, however, it increases both the number and the intensity of the problems. Even our intellectual questions are increased by the acceptance of a strong religious faith...If a man wishes to avoid the disturbing effect of paradoxes, the best advice is for him to leave the Christian faith alone..."
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
04/26/01 11:11 PM
RE: RE: RE: Deconstructing Warfare Theodicy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi: I do not know what that term means, but regardless, I am not arguing for anything. I am simply stating some opinions...I will leave the arguing to you guys...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
04/27/01 8:36 AM
RE: RE: To Sometimes Ally Mephi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the ballancing effect like i said i realy am a romantic. i just wish i had something right now that does for me what your kids do for you.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
writerdad
04/27/01 6:15 PM
RE: RE: RE: To Sometimes Ally Mephi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa: Upon rereading what I wrote, I find that I may have come off sounding a tad judgmental and, possibly a "knowitall." If so, I do apologize. It was not my intention to act or sound like either, but rather to simply state some of the views that have helped me get through certain areas of my life. This past year has brought death and tragedy into my corner of life and I am not at all as sure as I may have come off. For me, evil is easier to deal with philsopically than it is practically. Many times, after crying and dealing with it as best one can, the simple truth comes down to, do we trust God loves us? I draw strength from my children (and wife) because I believe that is where God is...it just seems that God is hesitant to interfere with the regular pattern of life, even in the face of great evil. Do I totally understand this? Hardly. But I do believe that if we concentrate solely on this aspect of God, we run the risk of losing sight of the complete picture of God. Job never found out why. Philip Yancey's books, The Jesus I Never Knew, Disappointment with God and Reaching For The Invisible God, have all helped me because he doesn't shy away from the pain of this world, which is something Christians tend to do. Gloss it over instead of honestly dealing with it. Anyway, if I did seem patronizing, I do apologize. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
04/30/01 8:53 PM
RE: RE: Deconstructing Warfare Theodicy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo! But here is the problem. If you are right, then if someone really does do something about evil wouldn’t we be forced to admit that they were being more responsible than God was? That they were in a way better than God? That they were doing a better job than God was? If God is just sitting on his butt waiting for us to clean up our (and His) mess shouldn’t we do as Camus’ character Dr. Rieux suggests in “The Plague”: “…Since the order of the world is shaped by death, mightn’t it be better for God if we refuse to believe in Him and struggle with all our might against death, without raising our eyes toward the heaven where He sits in silence.”
This is basically the atheist’s position when it comes to evil. I must admit they’ve got us beat. But whenever I surrender all the other problems come up in other areas. Still, they do have us beat when it comes to evil.
Paperweight
–Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
writerdad
04/30/01 10:55 PM
RE: RE: RE: Deconstructing Warfare Theodicy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are assuming that when we fight against evil, we are doing it alone and through our own power. I would disagree. I would say that God limits himself to working through his children and when his children choose to fight evil, God works through their efforts. And I would disagree with you about atheists having us beat, because, fundmentally, atheists have no reason whatsoever to fight against evil at all. There is no evil for atheists, because there are no moral absolutes. When atheists in western civilization speak of evil, they are borrowing Christian principles to describe evil, therefore they are using terms they don't really believe in. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
05/01/01 1:33 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: Deconstructing Warfare Theodicy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoa wait a minute. First off Plato and the Greeks talk about evil before Christianity (even though they weren’t atheists) it would be hard to demonstrate how all non-Christian, non-theists are borrowing from theistic traditions. Second many atheists do hold to moral absolutes, or at least some set of moral standard from which evil takes its definition. Third doesn’t this kind of a God sound a lot like a placebo God? If he didn’t exist would it change anything? Someone might just as well argue that believing God helps us fight evil works the same way that believing in magic feathers helps Dumbo fly—its really just us doing all the work. Of course this is what someone might argue. I do agree with you even though my bitterness lately might not show it well. I don’t want it to appear that I’m on the attack or anything, I just really think that the problem of evil is where Christianity has always been the weakest. It just happens to be the place where atheism shines. In my estimation, in this one area, atheism’s forte outdoes us where we lag behind.
Popsicles
–Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
writerdad
05/01/01 3:00 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Deconstructing Warfare Theodicy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa: what I meant was in western civilzation today, which is built on Jewish Christian principlies, atheists tend to define evil through the Christian principles that they have learned. And, no, I do not believe atheists have their own morals. By what standards should I believe in their morals? Because they tell me to? No, atheists today basically cop Christian principles for their own use. I would add that I don't believe there is ANY area atheists outshine Christians. To me, there is absolutely no reason to be an atheist. But that, of course, is my opinion.
Moreland and Kouhl have a good book in this area called: Moral Relativism. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Up to Msg List | Send to a Friend | Help << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Community Moderators: adiaphora
Site-Specific Moderators: springs
Jump To: cdearmond's Forums Christus Victor Ministries
Christus Victor Ministries
This site is part of the Christus Victor Ministries Community
GET A FREE MESSAGE BOARD. CLICK HERE.
Add This Forum to Your Site | Get a Free Message Board | Browse Other CoolBoards
What is CoolBoard? | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | ©1999-2000 CoolBoard.com
Copyright © Christus Victor Ministries, 200
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:01 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|