 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Carlie was murdered--Where was God? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 2/27/2004 7:42 PM (GMT -6) |   | Mayflower wrote:
quote:
If God "allows" certain tragedies (for a purpose or reason that
we cannot comprehend), do you believe that God, in some circumstances --allows/causes individuals to be born disabled? (SEE: thread excerpts at bottom of page).
I am an advocate for children with autism spectrum disorders; and, know beyond
a shadow of a doubt that My LORD (God IS Love!) is not "complicit" in causing the lifelong struggles & suffering that some individuals -- with a variety of significant disabilities, face every day of their lives.
For some persons with mobility impairments, each and every step is a laborious & painful challenge; for other human beings, each gasp of air must be fought for.
What "purpose" would there be in this?
What possible justification would Our Loving GOD offer families -- for "allowing" (or causing) their newborn infant to be born blind; mute, or, deaf?
What grand "purpose" could mend the hearts of parents whose beloved child is born with a disease such as Tay-Sach’s -- and is (genetically) doomed to die a horrific death at a very young age??
Mephi, I respect your passion and intelligence; however, a Heavenly Father who is complicit in evil/suffering -- is not the loving Savior that I have come to know so well....
Mephi wrote:
quote:
“God, at least SOMETIMES, is the one who MAKES people deaf, mute and all that. GOD does it. Not only that, but on the basis of being blind or whatever, a person could be near to God insofar as they were thought of as NOT being symbolically “holy” enough. So, God makes the people deaf and blind…KNOWING that they will defective even in GOD”S sight.”
Mephi wrote: quote:
"OK. With respect to Ex 4 give me another COMPELLING interpretation. How do you personally interpret this Scripture?"
quote:
Ex. 4:10-12. But Moses said to the LORD, “O my Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor even now that you have spoken to your servant: but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.” Then the LORD said to him, “Who gives speech to mortals? Who makes them mute or deaf, seeing or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?”
My personal paraphrase to convey my understanding of the concept: But Moses said to the Lord, “Father I am not a good speaker, or preacher. I never have been, and even now that you have told me what to say, I cannot express it to others. Then the Lord said to him, “I created humans, ergo I created their voice boxes, their capacity for speech, and gave them the intelligence to utilize language, don’t you think I can help you organize your thoughts with your mind and express them with your mouth? I have the power to strike a man mute or deaf, to see again or go blind. Do you doubt my power, my faithfulness? I AM with you!
If one were to wonder under what circumstances God would strike someone deaf or blind, one could look further in the Scriptures and discover that there are examples of God exercising this power for discipline, correction, or judgment. As in the cases of Saul being struck blind (Acts 9) or Zechariah becoming speechless (Luke 1:19) or Nebuchadnezzar losing his sanity, (Dan 4:28-34) etc. but there are no examples or teaching on God how causes babies to be born mute, blind, deaf, sick or suffering. Reading that into this verse that is teaching us about the power we have in Christ has nothing to do with God using deformities for some greater purpose. In this case at least Moses' real or imagined impediment was getting in the way of the Lord's will.
On the contrary, in John 9:1-7 when the disciples see a man who was born blind and they ask Jesus who God is punishing for some sin, Jesus responded, this is not about God causing people to be born blind – it’s about praising God because he has power to heal even that!
These tragedies are never orchestrated by God. There is no scripture that claims this. Rather they are a result of the deformity of creation as it groans under the ill effects of the fall.
The list of verses the could be compiled demonstrating God’s power over our human faculties and his desire to bring healing are many…
Mark 10:51 Blind Bartimeus receives his sight
Mark 8:25 Then his eyes were opened
Luke 5:12-13 Jesus heals the leper
And on and on and on.
Where are all the verses about God causing babies to be born disfigured, or in horrible suffering?
There are none.
Springs
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 2/27/2004 7:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph
Iconoclast,
Look. If you can find a BETTER TERM for what I'm trying to convey, then please be my guest. But I feel like you are getting hung up on the dictionary term rather than the concepts I'm trying to convey.
Iconoclast
I am very confused by the concepts that you are trying to convey. You say that Jesus is complicit in evil and yet is without sin. This is a contradiction in what complicit means. You say that it is possible for a 3-year old to be complicit. This is also a contradiction in what complicit means.
Complicity implies some level of moral culpability.
But you do seem to mean moral culpability. You seem to be saying that the 3-year old can, in fact, be morally culpable for evil. That God is morally culpable for the specific lesser evil that He actualizes when seeking to prevent a greater evil.
In essence you seem to be arguing that a free-will agent has the power to cause God to become morally culpable in evil because of God’s fundamental goodness. That because God is good God always seeks to minimize evil and thus God is morally culpable for the lesser evil that He chooses to actualize.
You also seem to be saying that if some agent benefits in any way from anything that was even remotely tainted by evil then they bear some moral culpability for that evil.
What you seem to be trying to convey is indeed complicity. Yet, I know of very few people (actually I don’t know of any) who would agree with you that a 3-year is ever capable of being complicit because moral culpability implies a moral choice and a 3-year is not capable of that kind of choice.
Most people would, I think, agree with you that if God does indeed actualize a lesser evil to prevent a greater evil that God is then complicit in that lesser evil.
Notice that Tom reframes what it means for God to choose a lesser evil. Tom, reframes it by insisting that it is really good. That choosing a lesser evil is really simply minimizing evil and is therefore good. Thus, God is not morally culpable for the lesser evil and therefore is not complicit.
Notice also that Tom only allows for this situation by postulating an insoluble conflict for God between the good of the one and the good of the whole.
This all goes back to the central issue of trying to understand why a loving God allows evil. We all know that to allow evil when you could prevent it is to be morally culpable for that evil, and thus be complicit in that evil, which contradicts being good or loving. The free-will defense is simply that God has an insoluble meta-physical conflict between creating loving beings and preventing evil.
Tom wants to add a further meta-physical conflict that God has between the good of the one versus the good of the whole. If this were a true meta-physical conflict that God faces then I think Tom is right in saying that for God to actualize a lesser evil in this situation is not complicity because God MUST actualize the lesser evil or else He will be complicit in the greater evil. The problem with this is that it leads us into a contradiction for it requires that there exists a measure of relative worth to God of each human being in relation to each other and the whole which contradicts what it means for God to love human beings. It presupposes that God sees humans as objects which contradicts God being loving.
I think the fundamental problem with the notion of a conflict between the good of the one and the good of the whole comes from assuming that this “good” is a measure of the relative impact of evil or the consequences of evil (pain, suffering) rather than evil itself.
I would suggest that the good of the one and the good of the whole are really the same thing. The good of the whole is that humans have free-will and thus the possibility to love God and each other. The good of the one is a human who has the possibility of choosing to love God and each other. Evil is when a human chooses to objectify God and others. Thus greater evil is when many humans choose to objectify each other and lesser evil is when fewer humans choose to objectify each other. But, in this case, how is it that God could choose to actualize fewer humans choosing to objectify each other since God cannot choose to actualize ANY humans choosing one way or the other without contradicting the fundamental premise that love must be chosen?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 2/27/2004 9:48 PM (GMT -6) | | [quote]Originally posted by MephEternal
(MEPH) ["Point: To the extent that God USED a product of the evil system (leprosy) for God's own divine ends, God PARTICIPATED with the evil system…and is, in so doing, COMPLICIT in said evil system. God never WANTED leprosy to exist, but since it does God can use it to God's own ends!"]
(JO-ANNE) Isn't this similar to God using Judas, who had given his life over to evil choices, to carry out His plan of salvation? I'm trying to see what you're saying. I think I do. But God did not cause Leprosy, the enemy did. God only used it in the sense that He was minimizing evil and maximizing good. Leprosy (evil) already existed. Judas. God did not direct Judas in his path, but since Judas had already chosen it, he became part of a plan that would bring about salvation - the Father was again minimizing evil and maximizing good.
 God Bless
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 2/27/2004 10:26 PM (GMT -6) | | (Mayflower to Meph)
My original question dealt specifically with individuals who are born with disabilites.
Mephi -- can you tell me if you believe that God allows/causes innocent children to be born with blindness, hearing impairments, and other disabilities?
(MEPH) 3) God meant this statement to say that God is the one who allows or give people the power of speech...meaning God can, when God chooses, have a say in who's deaf and mute.
I am inclined to go with #3 right now. I've heard an interpretation for #2, but found it not very compelling. If you can find some more compelling reasons why I shouldn't go with #3, help me out.
To Mayflower and Meph,
My thoughts on this one. Mark 9 - Jesus sees a man born blind from birth. His disciples enquire as to why this man was born blind, asking "Who sinned: this man or his parents, causing him to be born blind?" (The Message Bible) Jesus responds by telling them that they're asking the wrong question. He doesn't just tell them that their thoughts are way off base, but that they're actually focusing on the wrong thing. There is no "cause-effect" in this human tragedy. He then directs them instead to look for what God can do in this situation. Jesus then healed the man.
A little later Jesus proclaims, "I came into the world to bring everything into the clear light of day, making all the distinctions clear, so that those who have never seen will see, and those who have made a great pretense of seeing will be exposed as blind."
I do not see one instance of the Saviour using what the enemy has done. I see Him bringing good out of what the enemy has done, but never does He indicate that this was caused by God or "allowed" by God for the purpose of revealing God. Rather, God is revealed in bringing good out of what the enemy meant for evil.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/27/2004 10:31 PM (GMT -6) | | You guys are racing through this stuff. Yo!
OK, it was a mAssage that Anita got yesterday. Sorry about that. Yeah, massage. Not sure what I got in St. Paul when that lustful lady squeezed my bottom. Don’t you guys have a one-word description of that?
I’ll work on a summary for Doc. Or may I can copy a few posts that do the job and copy them over.
On complicity, I might be misunderstanding, but it seems like Mephi is arguing FROM complicity TO the fact that God sometimes sacrifices the rook for the queen. It’s like complicity is a premise for Mephi and then based on that he concludes that God must sacrifice the rook for the queen. But I’m moving in the opposite direction, FROM the fact that creation is conflicted and that God sometimes sacrifices the rook for the queen TO the question of whether or not this makes God complicit in evil structures. For me the ‘complicity’ question comes later and is a separate debate about how best to understand God’s involvement in a conflicted world and not itself essential to determining whether or not God actually ever lets the rook go for the queen. Also, it doesn’t seem that we’ve pinned down what “complicity” means. There’s the dictionary definition Iconoclast gives which is not what Mephi appears to be talking about. Whatever it is he’s talking about, in his mind it falls under being “IN” the world, not being “OF” it.
Now, when Iconoclast asked Mephi if a three year old could be complicity in evil, Mephi said yes. The child is complicit in (for example) the evil child-labor practices of that country. Economies of scale aren’t problematic or evil. Mephi’s assuming sweatshops where little kids are forced to work instead of going to school. The three year old is benefiting, gaining happiness, through a product of an evil structure. If THIS is what Mephi’s getting at by “complicit” then it doesn’t seem to explain what I’m talking about when I say God sacrifices the rook for the queen or switches the tracks. The latter is a conscious choice made in the full light of the truth of the situation. Being complicit (or not) in the evil of Asian sweatshops where children work by buying their products unknowingly is not the same thing.
More later. Back atcha Iconoclast.
Good stuff!
Tom
PS BJS! Hey, you’re a lawyer. Can you think of any actual cases in history that involved the sort of “switching of the tracks” that we’re talking about? That would be cool to hear about.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/28/2004 5:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: I realize, Semeia and Iconoclast, that for what you’re arguing the chess analogy (sacrificing a rook for a queen) and the train tracks MUST be discredited.
Iconoclast: Not universally - only in the physical realm. The analogy still applies in the meta-physical realm. The whole point of the analogy is to highlight that God truly experiences a conflict – that the reason God does not prevent evil is that He CANNOT prevent evil without losing something of even more importance than the possibility of evil.
Tom: Nothing here to disagree with. I’m with ya on the meta-physical realm. I’m not claiming God is physically limited (he can’t get to both bluffs on both hills to save all his sheep). All the constraints in my analogies are metaphysical constraints required by a world where love is possible.
----------------------------------
Tom: …it seems to me that the reasoning that tells me to affirm as appropriate sacrificing a rook for a queen is the same reasoning that got me out of simple foreknowledge, classical Arminianism, etc., into open theism.
Iconoclast: Yes. But what does this have to do with the physical realm? The logic only needs to apply at the meta-physical realm in order to do this.
Tom: Right! I’m not applying the analogy to the physical realm. The analogy COMES from the physical realm. All analogies must come from the physical/experiential world. But the physical constraints in the analogies are ‘analogies’ of the metaphysical self-limitations God commits to in creating a world where love is possible. What do you think I’ve been arguing?
----------------------------------
Tom: At the same time, the reasoning and logic (of love and freedom) that tell me these are so also, I feel, tell me it is appropriate to save the ten over the one when I can’t save them all but can save one or the either. That’s a conflicted situation, yes. But we live in a conflicted world. I don’t know what else to say.
Iconoclast: Yes, WE live in a world of physical conflicts. God does not. God lives in a world of meta-physical conflicts.
Tom: Exactly.
-----------------------------------
Iconoclast: All I am trying to point out here is that our rubric for determining what will maximize good in this physical situation is fundamentally flawed. You keep going back to using a rubric of pure number yet you then disagree that this is what God would do.
Tom: It’s an ‘analogy’ not a photocopy. What d’ya expect? Chess is a good analogy for open theism and infinite intelligence. Does God play chess? No. Are the conflicts God faces in life encountered while sitting in a chair moving plastic pieces around a board? No. So why don’t we toss out the chess analogy? Because it’s a good analogy. It connects where it needs to and that’s all that’s required.
I use “numbers” because they are important even if they’re not all-important. How could you possibly deny that the evil of gassing 500 innocent people at once (with one decision, not five hundred separate decisions) is not greater in impact and consequence for the world and God’s purposes for the world than that of gassing one innocent person? I’m not limiting God to numbers alone. I’m just suggesting that numbers is one way we assess damage control and that if numbers aren’t always all-important, they are important nonetheless and provide and ‘analogy.’ Whatever else is important besides numbers (and no doubt much else is) God takes in all into account in dealing with the world.
----------------------------------
Iconoclast: You say that God would evaluate based on all the variables which means God would apply some measure of the individuals worth to God’s purposes.
Tom: I don’t see how we can deny that persons play roles of greater and lesser importance to the accomplishing of God’s purposes in the earth. This does not amount to limiting the value a person has to God to their relative importance in the overall scheme of things. That’s an assumption that doesn’t follow from the face that people figure into God’s purposes differently. And, I might add, God’s not the only one who decides what role we play in the bigger scheme. We can, through a history of bad choices, render ourselves permanently unqualified for SOME tasks.
----------------------------------
Iconoclast: What if you happened to know that the ten on the tracks were all incorrigible serial killers who had already been sentenced to death and the one was an innocent child? What would you do then? I think most people would say that if the train was headed for the one innocent child you should switch the tracks and take out the ten serial killers.
Tom: Right. I’d leave the lever alone, not switch the tracks, and let the madman run over the ten (that’s where he’s headed, right?). If the madman was heading intentionally for the girl and I had the lever to pull, I’d switch it and direct it to the ten. I’d do so in faith, confessing my limitations, and would admit that I might later be proved wrong if there turned out to be factors I was ignorant of. This just goes to show that a) I’m not hung up purely on numbers, and b) we don’t have to worry about God not having all the facts.
-----------------------------------
Tom: I see your point, Semeia. But I’m trying to engage the categories of lesser and greater evil in terms of the sphere of influence our choices have, the extent of their impact upon others, and not whether the intrinsic “evil” of an evil act that impacts a small sphere of influence is somehow less intrinsically evil than an evil that impacts a very large sphere of influence. Both are equally “evil.” Both evils are not equally consequential to their spheres of influence. In this sense not all evil choices are as great as other evil choices.
Iconoclast: In my view this is to focus on what goes into the body and whether it is unclean or not. What God is concerned with is what comes out of our body and whether it is unclean or not.
Tom: If it’s poop that’s coming out, then it’s poop whether or not it’s a couple of ounces in private or a few pounds (poor guy) in public.  I’m not suggesting that a little bit of poop coming out isn’t poop because it’s smaller in comparison to a LOT of poop. I’m suggesting that several tons of poop left to bake in the sun in a public playground is greater in terms of impact and consequence than a few ounces flushed down the toilet.
Pleeeeease, nobody come back and say "Tom thinks Carlie was a little poop." I'm just playing off the analogy about being defiled by what comes out of our body and trying to say that while I recognized all evil AS evil, I also want to distinguish between evil of great impact and consequence and evil of less impact and consequence. I still hear Iconoclast denying this distinction even exists. If it does exist, it doesn't figure into his understanding of God's dealing whatsoever. God never takes it into account in providential terms. Maybe I'm still missing it!
-----------------------------------
Iconoclast: You are focusing on the symptom of evil and assuming that God is all about minimizing its impact rather than seeking to heal it at its source.
Tom: I categorically deny the either/or you want to force me into here: EITHER God is all about healing evil at its source OR God is all about minimizing the impact evil has in the world. Why in the world believe that either/or? There’s nothing self-contradictory, or imperfect even, about being concerned to heal evil at its source always and with every chance you get, but also choosing to do the best one can do, minimizing evil’s impact and consequences, when that’s all you’re left with after failing to heal it outright.
-----------------------------------
Iconoclast: I am arguing that there is a metaphysical conflict that God experiences between minimizing the impact of evil and creating loving beings.
Tom: I have recognized this at the heart of what I’ve been arguing. God’s overall purpose to create loving beings defines EVERY choice God ever makes in THIS world including how he opposes evil.
-----------------------------------
Iconoclast: For God to minimize the impact of evil by evaluating the potential worth of another human being is for God to objectify humans and thus no longer love humans Himself.
Tom: If I were suggesting that the “worth” here is a person’s intrinsic worth to God by virtue of being God’s creation, I’d agree. But I’m not talking about such intrinsic worth. And I haven’t seen anything yet to suggest that being intrinsically valuable to God is by definition the ONLY possible “worth” a person can have to God.
Was Abraham more important, more valuable, to God’s purposes than one of the citizens’ (pick one, any one) of Sodom who sought to rape Lot’s guests? Heck yeah! There might have been a time when that citizen faced a potential for good equal to or greater than Abraham. Who knows? But the citizen himself sacrificed this potential for good through his own evil choices over time and became useless to God. But he was still intrinsically as valuable to and loved by God as was Abraham right up to the moment God’s patience ran out and the fire fell.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 2/28/2004 5:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Springs: My personal paraphrase to convey my understanding of the concept: But Moses said to the Lord, “Father I am not a good speaker, or preacher. I never have been, and even now that you have told me what to say, I cannot express it to others. Then the Lord said to him, “I created humans, ergo I created their voice boxes, their capacity for speech, and gave them the intelligence to utilize language, don’t you think I can help you organize your thoughts with your mind and express them with your mouth? I have the power to strike a man mute or deaf, to see again or go blind. Do you doubt my power, my faithfulness? I AM with you!
Shell: Springs, I completely agree with you here and have always interpreted this in this way, and this is why:
Jesus told us to pray "...your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." There won't be disfigurement, deafness, and muteness in heaven, and God has commanded us to pray that HIS WILL be done here as it is in heaven, so I don't see how it is even possible for God to be "willing" that any would be born deaf, mute or disfigured.
Shell
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/28/2004 5:12 AM (GMT -6) | | BBBCanada: OK. First, the word "complicit" is as Meph Man and Tom say, probably the best that you are gonna get.
Tom: I thought I had argued that it was the worst word to use. I'd never use it. To express what Mephi is talking about, I'd just say, Jesus was a human being who participated in his world. I simply don't see the value of the whole complicit thing.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 2/28/2004 5:26 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB:PS BJS! Hey, you’re a lawyer. Can you think of any actual cases in history that involved the sort of “switching of the tracks” that we’re talking about? That would be cool to hear about.
JET:I’m not BJS, but here are some quotes from an Indiana Court of Appeals case that cites both the Bible and a “landmark” U. S. Supreme Court case dealing with a sinking lifeboat:
quote:
The origins of the necessity defense are lost in antiquity. At least one writer advances the notion that it may be traced to the Bible itself, the analogy being the destruction of property to save human lives: "Then the mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god, and cast forth the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it of them." Charles E. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Law § 90 (15th ed. 1993) quoting Jonah, c. 1, v. 5. In the criminal context the defense of necessity arose in the common law to excuse criminal conduct when a defendant was confronted with two evils and chose to engage in the prohibited conduct because it represented the lesser of the two evils. The underlying rationale is that to impose punishment upon a person who acted reasonably to avoid the greater harm serves neither to rehabilitate that person nor to deter others presented with a similar situation. It has also been observed that “no action . . . can be criminal if it is not possible for a man to do otherwise. An unavoidable crime is a contradiction; whatever is unavoidable is no crime; and whatever is a crime is not unavoidable." John H. Gillett, Gillett On Criminal Law § 7 (2d Ed. 1895) quoting Rutherforth's Inst. c. 18, sec. 9.
One of the leading decisions in this country recognizing the defense of necessity in a criminal law context is found in the landmark case of United States v. Holmes, 1 Wall. Jr. 1, 26 F. Cas. 360(C.C.E.D.Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383) . In that case a ship sank at sea forcing the survivors to crowd into a leaking lifeboat. The crew decided to throw sixteen passengers overboard to prevent the boat from sinking. Holmes, a crew member who participated in tossing passengers into the sea, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. On appeal Holmes argued that his conduct was justified given the choices confronting him. Although rejecting Holmes's argument because the method of determining who was to live or die was not fair, the court nonetheless accepted the principle that committing a harm, even the taking of human life, could sometimes be justified because it avoided the loss of even more lives, which was a greater harm. Id.
The common law defense of necessity has evolved over the years and is often referred to as the "choice of evils" defense. . . . Although the confines of the necessity defense vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the central element involves the emergency nature of the situation. That is, under the force of extreme circumstances, conduct that would otherwise constitute a crime is justifiable and not criminal because of the greater harm which the illegal act seeks to prevent.
The following requirements have traditionally been held to be prerequisites in establishing a necessity defense: (1) the act charged as criminal must have been done to prevent a significant evil; (2) there must have been no adequate alternative to the commission of the act; (3) the harm caused by the act must not be disproportionate to the harm avoided; (4) the accused must entertain a good-faith belief that his act was necessary to prevent greater harm; (5) such belief must be objectively reasonable under all the circumstances; and (6) the accused must not have substantially contributed to the creation of the emergency.
Toops v. State, 643 N.E.2d 387, 390 (Ind. App., 1994)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 2/28/2004 5:26 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/28/2004 5:27 AM (GMT -6) | | BBBCanada: So all of this angst about trying to explain how God can be "complicit" in evil because he at times may "sacrifice the rook for the queen" is unnecessary in my mind. There's nothing evil AT ALL about choosing the lesser of two evils. Nothing.
Tom: Iconoclast would grant all this BUT not if the soldiers Eisenhower sent to their deaths were unaware or unwilling to go. It has to be consensual. I have a few thoughts on this too, but I'm out the door to take Anita out for a (no, not a mEssage and not a mAssage), just a movie.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 2/28/2004 5:30 AM (GMT -6) | | The Apostle Paul dealt with "evil structures" in Romans 14.
Romans 14:1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.
2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.
The "weak" one is the vegetarian! Interesting. The one who eats meat that's been sacrificed to an idol within the "evil system" is the strong one.
3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.
Do not judge? Accepted by God? But Paul, the "complicity".....
4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
What? Paul, what about CORPORATE responsibility? "Complicity" in "evil structures"? The blunt, vague hammer of guilt-induction?
6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.
7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself;
8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.
9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
11 For it is written,
"AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD."
12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
I.n.d.i.v.i.d.u.a.l.i.t.y.
13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this-- not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.
14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Individual conscience again? Paul, that's so "uncomplicit". Which seminary did you go to?
15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.
16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil;
O.K. For Mephi's sake, no more toys from Taiwan. But has Mephi been to Taiwan? What veracity can he provide?
17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
19 So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.
20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense.
21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.
22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
I'm happy. No condemnation now. No general, vague feeling of badness because of the circumstances of my birth.
23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/28/2004 5:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Springs: How is it not evil, to choose evil?
Tom: Lady of Refreshing Springs! It it evil to "choose" evil. God doesn't "choose" evil.
Come on, Springs, tell me. You're standing at the lever, the locomotive is barreling down the tracks heading for the ten girl scouts. You're the last link in a chain of attempts to stop this guy and to free all the girls, but nothing worked. You're it. You can switch the tracks and save the ten at the cost of the train running over one girl (which the madman, not you, tied to those tracks) or you can do nothing and watch the ten die.
Come on, nobody's listen. It's just you and I. Watcha gonna do? C'mon c'mon. Spreesh yoself!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 2/28/2004 5:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BJS
How is it evil (complicit, active, whatever) to choose the lesser of two evils?
Shell: It would be evil for me to allow one of my daughters to be taken by a murdering rapist in order to save my other daughter and my son. Is it REALLY the lesser of two evils? Is it REALLY measurable that way? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 2/28/2004 5:37 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Springs: How is it not evil, to choose evil?
Tom: Lady of Refreshing Springs! It it evil to "choose" evil. God doesn't "choose" evil.
Come on, Springs, tell me. You're standing at the lever, the locomotive is barreling down the tracks heading for the ten girl scouts. You're the last link in a chain of attempts to stop this guy and to free all the girls, but nothing worked. You're it. You can switch the tracks and save the ten at the cost of the train running over one girl (which the madman, not you, tied to those tracks) or you can do nothing and watch the ten die.
Come on, nobody's listen. It's just you and I. Watcha gonna do? C'mon c'mon. Spreesh yoself!
Tom
Tom, in the train tracks analogy, why is the agent always switched from God, who's powerful enough and smart enough to enact a non-evil solution, to us mere mortals who don't have those resources?
Springs switches to the third track, the empty track. I DEFEATED YOUR LAME analogy!!! woo hoo <high fives>
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 2/28/2004 5:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Springs: How is it not evil, to choose evil?
Tom: Lady of Refreshing Springs! It it evil to "choose" evil. God doesn't "choose" evil.
Come on, Springs, tell me. You're standing at the lever, the locomotive is barreling down the tracks heading for the ten girl scouts. You're the last link in a chain of attempts to stop this guy and to free all the girls, but nothing worked. You're it. You can switch the tracks and save the ten at the cost of the train running over one girl (which the madman, not you, tied to those tracks) or you can do nothing and watch the ten die.
Come on, nobody's listen. It's just you and I. Watcha gonna do? C'mon c'mon. Spreesh yoself!
Tom
Springs, Tom or I answering what we would do in this situation doesn't at all speak to what God would do. Why are we saying God has to choose at all. I see him fighting against both at all times. I guess I am anxious to hear Greg's input in this because I have never understood him to be saying God's sacrificing the Rook to save the Queen is applied in this way. I've really missed something if it is.
Shell | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 2/28/2004 5:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom wrote: quote:
Now, when Iconoclast asked Mephi if a three year old could be complicity in evil, Mephi said yes. The child is complicit in (for example) the evil child-labor practices of that country. Economies of scale aren’t problematic or evil. Mephi’s assuming sweatshops where little kids are forced to work instead of going to school. The three year old is benefiting, gaining happiness, through a product of an evil structure. If THIS is what Mephi’s getting at by “complicit” then it doesn’t seem to explain what I’m talking about when I say God sacrifices the rook for the queen or switches the tracks. The latter is a conscious choice made in the full light of the truth of the situation. Being complicit (or not) in the evil of Asian sweatshops where children work by buying their products unknowingly is not the same thing.
TGB, So you want me to throw the switch while I'm unconscious?
ps: BJS is not code for BBBC dude.
Shell, Good to hear from you. Nice point. I have never understood Doc to be saying that either.
Iconoclast wrote: quote:
God truly experiences this meta-physical conflict and chooses love - He chooses to lose the rook (He allows evil) in order to save the queen (create loving beings).
-S
| | Back to Top | | |
| 777 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:14 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 |
|
|