 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Carlie was murdered--Where was God? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/12/2004 6:47 PM (GMT -6) |   | Meph said
Digression: This is where I DON'T like Doc's "seeing Jesus" motif, the way he applies it. Doc has an certain picture of Jesus and then says "Hey, if I can't see Jesus doing this, then I have some reason to say that it wasn't Jesus." Well, guess what? I don't necessarily think that many people would see Jesus allowing or ordaining Satan to incite David to count the men, and then punishing the PEOPLE (rather than David) by a devastating plague when David goes through with it! I don't think many people would see the foot-washing Jesus doing what God does with Job. I don't think many people would see Jesus zapping a guy for trying to stop the Ark from falling to the ground because an ox tripped. But hey, look what we have. Looking at these events microscopically and THEN trying to superimpose OUR view of WWJD on it makes for bad news.]
I appreciate your focus on the systematic thought required in interpreting Scripture.
I suggest we begin our systematic thought with Jesus and the emphatic statement “He IS the image (ICON) of the invisible God.” “Click on Jesus” and the whole God “program” opens. Furthermore, my assumption is that the cross unequivocally establishes that God is in fact wholly benevolent.
The Gospels present a full spectrum of Jesus’ emotions and actions—from compassion for an adulteress to whipping the money changers out of the temple.
What is the common thread in these narratives? And how do we integrate these “harsh” actions of Jesus in the New Testament and the “harsh” actions of God in the Old Testament with the benevolent God presented in Scripture and verified by the cross.
So, can we “see Jesus” in David… or in the Ark incidents? I believe we can. The common ground is that the stated will of God has been blatantly violated. The people are accountable for their leaders (at least in this case)—Hence, they are punished. David is ultimately held accountable as well. My assumption is that perfect justice is ultimately served across the board because it is served by God. Ditto regarding the Ark incident. We might not understand WHY God made the rules regarding the Ark. But we do know THAT God made rules regarding the Ark. My assumption is that since God made the rules they must be good. With this assumption no one is left “scratching their head” as to why God behaved “harshly.” A rule was broken—Nothing abstract here. Nothing to debate. Nothing to “philosophize” about. A perfect rule from a perfect God was broken and a consequence necessarily must follow else God’s word is meaningless.
I believe the example of Job is not appropriately applied in this discussion because the inspired author goes out of his way to make the point that it is, in fact, Satan and NOT God who “does it” to Job. This is the testimony of the text. However, we “systematize” Job into our theology we must not ultimately conclude that which is opposite to the primary point of the Prologue (See my previous post on page 2 of this thread for how I believe Job can be integrated into Free Will Theism).
So can we see Jesus / God acting “harshly”? Yes. Hell is the ultimate testimony to this fact. However, is there ever a “harsh” action of God in Scripture that occurs without clear explanation? This I believe is the key. Even with the flood and the Amelikites when women and children are killed we are given a “because” (they were wicked). This IS the reason. We might not understand the reason. We might not agree with the reason. But God gives us a clearly stated reason. Ditto to Jesus. “They have made my Father’s house a den of thieves.” Therefore, out comes the whip. Cause and effect is consistent in the “harsh” behavior of Jesus / God.
In contrast such consistency is not the case with Satan (nor man). Like Sherman through Atlanta, Satan is just roaming and devouring without rhyme or reason. Pointlessly. Gratuitously. Arbitrarily.
I submit that when there is no clear revelation (preceded by divine warning) that God’s Word is in violation and that judgment has come in that regard we must default (mode) to the assumption that the “evil” in question is from the hand of Satan and/or man. As a corollary, I submit that the more random and gratuitous the situation the more likely Stan is the culprit. Man lives and makes decisions based on the “weight of the evidence” and not on “DEFINITIVE” conclusions devoid of uncertainties incorporating every possibility. So our “default mode” relative to God should, likewise, default to the weight of the evidence (which has established a benevolent God) and compel us to draw conclusions about God with the same certainty and confidence that we draw conclusions elsewhere.
Hence, regarding your prior example of lynching and racism, we can conclude based on the weight of the evidence that for every lynching (connecting with our experience) in the absence of clear revelation or a reason for “harsh” action on God’s part there is no “orchestration by God.”
The same applies to your reference to chastisement in Hebrews 12. Chastisement, by definition, is purposeful and for correction. Chastisement has a stated objective “known” to both parties. So, where clear revelation is absent, chastisement cannot be assumed as the motif.
I agree with your previous statement, “I… realize that the ULTIMATE source and empowerment of this "matrix" is the Evil One.” However, I believe this statement is inconsistent with your preceding statement, “The fact of the matter is that I CANNOT look at any particular lynching event, act of gentrification, hate crime or whatever...and DEFINITIVELY say that it's not even possible it wasn't orchestrated from God...”
Now if “the ULTIMATE source and empowerment of this "matrix" is the Evil One,” then one CAN DEFINITELY conclude that a lynching is not orchestrated by God.
Ultimately, because our sense of justice comes from God—And because the same justice applies to God, the author of justice. Tragedies (lynchings, abduction of an 11 year old, etc.) which violate man’s intuitive sense of justice must be assumed, by default, to originate from the “evil one” and not from God.
In deference to His revealed (and concrete) character (in Jesus—the ICON of God) alone, we simply grant “the benefit of the doubt” with certainty to God in all matters of abstraction of evil.
To God alone be the glory,
John
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 2/12/2004 7:16 PM (GMT -6) | | John (from your response to Meph)
You said,
"I suggest we begin our systematic thought with Jesus and the emphatic statement “He IS the image (ICON) of the invisible God.” “Click on Jesus” and the whole God “program” opens. Furthermore, my assumption is that the cross unequivocally establishes that God is in fact wholly benevolent."
I love that, "Click on Jesus" and the whole God "program" opens." What a wonderful quote. Jesus made it crystal clear that we are seeing the Father when we look at Him ("He who has seen me has see the Father." "I and the Father are one.") We can think, philosophize, dissect scripture (necessary) consider reason, tradition and experience - but may we never forget to consider the image of God the Father in Jesus Christ.
A mentor in the faith once told me that the Holy Spirit never draws attention to Himself - that He always points to the person of Jesus Christ. Perhaps that is why. He is a clear picture of the Father. He is our ultimate example. We are to be transformed into the likeness of Christ, to be "like-minded" ... the Son sheds light on almost everything. Although it is impossible to know and understand everything, He encourages us to draw close, to keep seeking, to pray without ceasing... The only guarantee being His presence. All else, as my wonderful friend Lou puts it, is "icing on the already fabulous dessert."
John (an aside) are you a writer?
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/13/2004 4:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
quote:
B) finally, just cuz I'm on my soapbox, I might as well add that I will never ever as long as I am on this earth (ever ever ever) believe that God is behind/causes/times ANY act of evil that occurs between human beings...not Zosia, not Carlie, not Hitler, not 911. Nope. That is settled in my mind. The god of this age is working at ODDS with God...there is no way anyone can convince me otherwise.
Hey, you must have some very good reasons to be so thoroughly convinced of this belief! How about you share those with me...cause maybe they will convince me too. I'd love to work out someway that God could NEVER, EVER orchestrated, cause, or manipulate any particular evil events...that wouldn't significantly depower God, remove God's ability to do things unilaterally, or virtually reduce God to the actualization of some principle.
So shoot. I'm all ears!
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 2/13/2004 4:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Interesting thread… which is what we’ve come to expect when Meph is stirring the pot. I have just two points to make.
1. I don’t see that Meph’s broken TV analogy of my theology works very well. In pointing out the numerous variables that affect the extent to which God’s will comes to pass, I am not at all suggesting that all the variables have to be in place for God’s will to come to pass.
Seat belts and driving sober help save lives, but it doesn’t follow that you’re certainly going to die unless you’re wearing a seat belt and are sober when you drive. OTHER variables affect this as well.
The variables I allude to in Is God to Blame? and Satan and the PRoblem of Evil help us to appreciate the unfathomable complexity of creation, and to locate the mystery of the seeming aribrariness of life, and of God’s involvement in life, in this complexity, not in the character or purposes of God. The variables help us see that there ARE contraints on what God can and cannot do in any given situation while allowing us to appreciate why we can't know HOW these contraints converge in any given situation.
2. Meph seems to want to say God is bound by contraints sometimes, but not others. He has chosen not to override free will to rescue Carlie, but he elsewhere can choose to override free will. So, it seems, we can entertain the free will defense as a possibility to explain some evil, but also must entertain the possibility that God willed the evil.
This way of construing the matter renders EVER appealing to free will to explain ANYTHING completely unintelligible.
As I see it, the problem with this perspective is not that it delimits the scope of free will. I and all open theists (and Arminians) grant that God sovereignly puts parameters on the domain of creaturely "say-so" and can thus unilaterally act outside these domains. As I see it, the problem with Meph’s theology on this point is rather that it renders free will utterly meaningless.
There is no reason Meph can give us – and no conceivable reason anyone could give us – as to why God "limits " himself by agents' free will sometimes but not others. Consequently, there really is no conceivable constraint on God in any situation. Hence, nothing is explained by appealing to the free will of agents in ANY context.
Put different, saying "Carlie suffered because of peoples’ free will" and "Carlie suffered because God simply wanted her to suffer" ARE IDENTICAL STATEMENTS.
So far as I can see, free will is a completely superfluous addendum to Meph’s theology. It is present, one supposes, because there are versus in the Bible that talk this way… but it accomplishes nothing and explains nothing within the context of his over-all theology.
I am making the same point when I say that the problem with Meph’s theology is that it divorces free will from metaphysics. For Meph, free will is not necessary for genujine love to exist – or for any other discernable purpose God might have. God simply wants it (here and there), but we can't know why. This is why there is no metaphysical constraint upon God in Meph’s theology. And this is also why his theology reduces down to one gigantic mystery. Saying God "couldn’t" do something in this theology is actually a red herring, for God COULD just have easily have made it so the "couldn’t" didn’t exist. And a "couldn't" that "could" is not a "couldn't."
Of course, Meph will respond by saying there ARE constraints, but we don’t know what they are. We know (he postulates) that they don’thave to do with free will itself. But we can't speculate as to what they ARE.
Two further points can be made about this:
A) I don’t see tthat this renders Meph's theology, at least in its present form, a very compelling competitor to anyalternative theology. One might have thought that ANY semi-plausible explanation is better than one that explains nothing. Indeed, if one assumes that the point of theology is to REASON (logos) about God (theos) – to bring congruity between the heart and mind – to make sense out of things – then I don’t see that this perspective fairs too well as a THEO –LOGICAL option. Conversely, if this ISN'T the point of theology, then what is theo-ology?
B) Given the impenetrable mystery of all God’s purposes in Meph’s present theology, it becomes unclear how we could say ANYTHING definitive about ANYTHING as it concerns God. Consider: If it's conceivable that God ordained every act of racial prejudice, as Meph earlier admitted… well, what ISN"T it possible to suppose God ordained? The sexual slavery of Vietnamese girls in Cambodia, as well as the men who gratify themselves with them? The eternal suffering of a person, of most people – even of ALL people…?
Since we don't know God's ultimate purposes, anything is possible. Yes, of course, we know that God's ultimate purposes are good. But if this goodness doesn't exclude slavery, racial prejudice, the sexual exploitation of children... then it doesn't in principle exclude anything.
And now one might rightly wonder what meaning the word "goodness" has when applied to God, within the context of meph's theology.
My point here is not to make a "slippery slope" argument. (I am not theologizing out of a fear of Calvinism!) My point is simply to highlight that in Meph’s theology, at least as I understand it in its present form nad as expressed on this thread, WE DON'T and CAN"T KNOW GOD.
Any more than we could think we "know" the "loving character" of a man who, for mysterious reasons (he tells us are "good") sexually exploits Vietnamese little girls or lynch's blacks in Duluth.
And this, I most humbly submit, is a rather high price to pay for embracing any theology.
Blessings,
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/13/2004 8:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph Man says:quote:
Nope. Ya miscounted, Tom. If I get a miraculous deliverance, it could be in three contexts...
1) God just wanted you delivered and made a UNILATERAL choice to do so...negating all other factors effectively.
2) God wanted you delivered and, via EXTREMELY PERSUASIVE means (possibly even working compatibilistically), used other agents to do so.
3) God was able to work among the creational factors in a situation, and given things were aligned properly, God was able to deliver you.
I (Brandon) respond:
quote:
I haven't read through this whole thread and this has been gone over umpteen times. I hear ya and I agree with ya, but please indulge me Meph Man. If God CAN do option #1 then why would he have to be "concerned" with options #2 and #3 in ANY scenario? It seems that, "God was able to work among the creational factors in a situation" and "things were aligned properly" (God RESPONDS) lose their import because of option #1. The only thing that I can think of is as you say, God is ULTIMATELY responsible for evil seeing as he has set the "parameters" up in the first place and "decides" to providentially work within those parameters. But then, is this not the crux of the question? Option #1 is suppose to negate all those factors. So then what? Are we left with our finitude and mystery? Or could it be free agency as in your father and son cooking analogy?
Tom says:
quote:
quote:
BBCanada: If God CAN do option #1 then why would he have to be "concerned" with options #2 and #3 in ANY scenario?
That’s one question we might ask Mephi. My guess is, God just wanted it that way. God wanted (for reasons beyond love and goodness, for these only define the variables of God’s actions SOME of the time) to only act unilaterally sometimes and be limited by our freedom other times. And God decides on a case by case basis which is which.
Meph Man responds with not much of an explanation:
quote:
Yep. I would say that God just wanted it that way. He wanted a reality where free will and love could exist, BUT God still retained the ability to do unilateral activity. And does anyone find a problem with that?
To which Greg replies:
quote:
For Meph, free will is not necessary for genujine love to exist – or for any other discernable purpose God might have. God simply wants it (here and there), but we can't know why. This is why there is no metaphysical constraint upon God in Meph’s theology. And this is also why his theology reduces down to one gigantic mystery.
Exactly. If I recall, Meph Man wanted to stay away from “mysterious pie in the sky” of guys like Piper. Recall the “Faith and Doubt after Sept 11 on PBS” thread, especially point three. There he said:
quote:
BJS:
quote:
I thought Rabbi Brad Hirschfield's stuff was VERY interesting. . .Can I get a witness, Meph?
Oh, fo SHO, Brett! I was feelin' him...deeply. Understand some of the stuff THAT man was sayin', you wouldn't have any problems understanding my views to a LARGE extent.
*****************************
Some VERY brief thoughts about CHRISTIAN belief that I had as I've been reading the PBS website.
1) Process theology has the potential to BLOW UP...for real. Think about it. It's the ONLY THING that I know of that really gets a personal, all-lovingk, all-influential God pretty much COMPLETELY off the hook...but NOT with an easy solution! God's struggling and suffering just like WE are. God's fighting just like we are AT ALL TIMES. And God has NO HANDS but ours (as John Cobb would say). Who would suffer like this God who works ONLY through such deficient tools? Anyways, hope in HUMANITY is, at the same time, hope in God...while hope in God gives us more of a REASON to hope in humanity. This type of theism has IMMENSE benefits in situations like these. The only problem is that we'd ultimately have to deny a God that ACTUALLY speaks and acts unilaterally...which means that any given religious experience (including God "talking" to you and miracles) would be more HUMAN INTERPRETATION OF and EXTRAORDINARY RESPONSE TO divinely initiated aims than anything else. So much for the Risen Christ actually having a CONVERSATION with someone...
Honestly, if I could bring myself to believe process theology completely, I would in a heartbeat. NO...FRIGGIN...LIE. But guess what...
2) Open view theism ultimately just ain't gonna cut it entirely. Not with a LOT of folx. Like I said before, to the extent that we grant God SIGNIFICANT unilateral power, the ethical question raises its ugly head like a cobra. And strikes us, it does. On one end, people would say that God is as weak as HELL if he can't do more than what he's doing...and point to Sept. 11th as evidence. On the other hand, people would say that IF HE COULD do more, then his so-called "greater good" plan is causing too much suffering...and universalism in paradise BETTER be there to make up for all of this. Otherwise, it just doesn't seem worth ANY of the gratuitous evil (as I've defined it before)
3) Calvinists like John Piper better get SUPER-eschatological and SUPER-mysterious. "We don't understand, but we KNOW that 1) God knows things we DON'T know and 2) God's got this all under control. Hey, this intricate plan of God's will ALLLLLL make sense on the other side, when we are with God." That's about ALL they can bet things on. (Perhaps, ultimately, that's all open view theists can say, too. Hmmm...)
My continued solution for those who believe in a UNILATERALLY powerful, speaking, acting God: Theistic bootlicking. See, you think I'm joking. But ask yourself, what can REALLY get you past the existential angst of atrocites, bewildering requests by God, and tons of dark nights of the soul? Can even open view theism get you past all that? (Answer=no.) I know that looking to the "great bye and bye" doesn't do it for me. And neither does rejoicing in free will. Personally, I have to 1) give God his props as God the Creator...along with FULL rights and priveleges and 2) BELIEVE that the Christ Work is ENOUGH to cover all the madness...enough to hold to God ultimately being "for us". That's all.
Again, just some thoughts.
Yet, it seems his view is not substantially different (mysterious wise) from those who are criticized. Hmmm…Meph Man? Any thoughts on this? Yes, God can be God with full rights and privileges, yet it seems that some explaining needs to be done. See, you should have done gone and explained yourself like I asked you a long time ago!
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/13/2004 12:57 PM (GMT -6) | | I don't have too much time right now...but I will say this: Doc,I don't think that you understand my position.
Filter this in what you are saying: For this discussion, Meph is assuming that 1) Love requires freedom and 2) that God created a world such that free will and indeterminacy exist.
I am NOT saying that God removes or negates free will. What I am saying is that, in some situations, God sets up the parameters such that 1) God has the ability to do unilateral action and 2) said unilateral action WILL trump all other creational factors involved in those situations.
This is DISTINCT from saying that God just negates free will anytime that God wants.
Maybe an example is in order. Let's say that God wants to heal Josephine. I want to say that it could be the case that God could set up parameters around this event such that:
--NO absence of prayer
--NO amount of demonic influence working against God
--NO amount of human activity against the event
--NO angelic inaction or rebellion
--NO random "bad luck" events
and...
--NO amount of sin in the situation
...would prevent God from healing Josephine.
Is this clearly understood? I am not saying that God NEGATES all of these forces via removing free will. I am saying that God so defines and constrains the parameters that NONE of the forces that oppose God can STOP God from doing what God wants to do! There's a difference.
It is THIS type of unilateral action by God that would raise the question: Why did God work unilaterally in THIS situation rather than THAT one? Better yet, why didn't God just work unilaterally in ALL of the situations?
The answer to the 2nd question is simple: God wanted a world where free-willed agency would have some meaningful ramifications! For this to happen, it would not be wise for God to effectively make all free-willed action insignificant all the time. Doc already says this. Now the answer to the 1st is the tricky one. And at THAT point, is where one would have to say that it was for a good reason that we do not or CANNOT know.
Please note that, with my view, love, free will and God's interaction with creational factors is still intact. All I'm doing is taking what Doc supposedly believes and applying it to situations where PARTICULAR evil events occur. Doc said:
quote:
I and all open theists (and Arminians) grant that God sovereignly puts parameters on the domain of creaturely "say-so" and can thus unilaterally act outside these domains.
If Doc truly believes that God can set parameters such that the domains of creaturely "say-so" can allow God to act unilaterally, then WHY is he disagreeing with me? He should be willing to admit that this means that God can effectively set limitations on creaturely say-so that renders said say-so INEFFECTIVE in withstanding God's purpose within a certain domain…which is ALL I'm saying.
In the domain of Jesus speaking to the storm and calming it, it is possible that God set parameters around that situation such that ANY amount of "say-so" going AGAINST Jesus's efficacy would not stop Jesus doing what he wanted to do. In the domain of Jesus going to the town to heal, it is possible that God did NOT say those parameters, instead deciding to work specifically through the faith of the people. And unfortunately, there was not enough faith there.
See what I'm saying?
Here's a question for Doc:
Does the possibility exist that God can do something in a given situation...even though EVERY creational factor that CAN be against God in that situation is in operation? If so, HOW?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 2/13/2004 4:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If Doc truly believes that God can set parameters such that the domains of creaturely "say-so" can allow God to act unilaterally, then WHY is he disagreeing with me? He should be willing to admit that this means that God can effectively set limitations on creaturely say-so that renders said say-so INEFFECTIVE in withstanding God's purpose within a certain domain…which is ALL I'm saying.
Real quick Mephi, with due respect this is not ALL you are saying. Think about what you said to me earlier: I'd love to work out someway that God could NEVER, EVER orchestrated, cause, or manipulate any particular evil events...that wouldn't significantly depower God, remove God's ability to do things unilaterally, or virtually reduce God to the actualization of some principle.
By saying this aren't you also saying that God is powerful because He retains the ability to do BOTH good and EVIL to bring about His purposes. I, on the other hand, am saying that God is powerful and CAN do things unilaterally if He chooses - just that He doesn't need to use evil means to do so. (no depowering or evil in the unilateral act of healing josephine, right?)
Here's a question for Mephi:
Could a person completely agree with you (in the statements below) and just disagree that God would want to (or have to) use evil means to accomplish His desired outcomes, ever?
quote:
Mephi:
Maybe an example is in order. Let's say that God wants to heal Josephine. I want to say that it could be the case that God could set up parameters around this event such that:
--NO absence of prayer
--NO amount of demonic influence working against God
--NO amount of human activity against the event
--NO angelic inaction or rebellion
--NO random "bad luck" events
and...
--NO amount of sin in the situation
...would prevent God from healing Josephine.
Is this clearly understood? I am not saying that God NEGATES all of these forces via removing free will. I am saying that God so defines and constrains the parameters that NONE of the forces that oppose God can STOP God from doing what God wants to do! There's a difference.
love
selah
PS My quick answer to your question regarding my resolve that God is not behind human to human evil (ever) is this: I can't do it in my head. (I'm imagining you with hair pulling it out right now..ha) I'm so tired though, it will be better if I try to explain the rest tomorrow. In faith, hope and love, selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/13/2004 7:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi and I spent some time talking today and I think we found REAL agreement. A couple of things really came to gether to bridge the gap. Turns out we're a LOT closer than we thought.
Now if I can just word it the right way...
Gimme a bit of time.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/14/2004 3:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
quote:
Could a person completely agree with you (in the statements below) and just disagree that God would want to (or have to) use evil means to accomplish His desired outcomes, ever?
Well, a person could disagree with me, but only if they disagree with Doc. See, Doc says (and with THIS, I would actually agree) that sometimes God has times where the "rook has to be sacrificed for the queen", in chess lingo. What this means is that sometimes God is placed in the position that, in order to maximize aesthetic value of Creation (that's minimizing evil and maximizing good at the same time), God has to deal with NECESSARY EVILS. Sacrificing the few or the one for the good of the MANY. The "train track" idea would be an example of this.
Sure, God would have LIKED to not have to deal with evil at all...OR have to sometimes "tolerate necessary evils", but given the world God wanted to create, it comes with the territory. Right, Doc?
Hey, Tom. Remember to talk about COMPLICITY and God "taking responsibility" Tom, has a REALLY good take on this, y'all.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/14/2004 6:57 AM (GMT -6) | | OK, let's hope I can get this out of my head and onto the screen. As Mephi and I were talking about this a few really good ideas popped up in the discussion and we both said, "Oh, is that what you're saying? I'm cool with that!" Now I can't remember exactly how we phrased it!
Let's see. I want to say that God always does all God can do to maximize love and goodness and minimize evil given the conditions God set up for creation. If God IS love, God is what he is all the time and everywhere. I've been understanding Mephi to be denying this and claiming that "maximizing love and goodness" is just ONE of God's purposes.
Mephi says God also has other purposes at work sometimes. In response, I've wondering if God has purposes that are OTHER than loving and good and that involve evil, then how is God love? I was sure Mephi was defining love so strangely that it didn't resemble anything we could recognize. In fact, it sometimes more resembled what we mean by "hatred." If God treating me like THIS (i.e., some evil that strikes me down) is his love for me, then what does "God hates me" look like?
The more we got to talking it seemed that there's more agreement between Mephi and me than either of us thought. It seems that where we were missing each other was in what we were including in the "variables" or "conditions" that determine the nature and extent of God's involvement. Mephi seems to have thought that when I say "God maximized good and minimized evil in Carlie's situation" that this means ONLY Carlie's good, good defined within the boundaries of Carlie alone (her pain, her suffering, her life). In fact, it seemed to me that this is how Mephi has understood our use of "maximizing good and minimizing evil" all along: "good" defined within the narrow borders of the suffering person's own pain. But (Mephi's point) isn't it conceivable that when understood against maximizing the good of the whole, that is, all creation, that God's involvement in Carlie's death might look different than when that involvment is seen to be determined by only Carlie's good?
Switching the tracks is an example. Why is it right to switch the tracks so that a train runs over one girl instead of ten? Well, it would seem to be wrong of me to make this decision with respect to the one girl if "maximizing good and minimizing evil" meant "maximmizing HER goodness and minimizing HER evil." But if I act with reference to the greater good of the whole, the entire cosmos, taking into account everybody else's good and evil, then I did a good thing in switching the tracks.
Does switching the tracks on a train controlled by an evil madman implicate me morally in his act when the train runs over the one girl? I think certainly not. To NOT act would, I think, implicate me in the death of the ten. To not act is to act. For us to know to do good and not to do it is sin. Do we want to say the good here is not doing anything so that we can say "I had nothing to do with the train event. I wasn't invovled." But I think I AM involved by being ABLE to do something. So I definitely agree with Mephi that God gets involved this way. The question has been, what decides the nature and extent of God's involvement?
Mephi wants to say that the varialbes of God's maximizing good and minimizing evil include in Carlie's situation and all other situations the whole vast picture of creation and that there could be some good that is served, or even might be served, by Carlie's death and that though God had the ability, given the particular varialbes relevant to Carlie's particular situation on that day in front of the car wash, to prevent her abduction and death, God may have chosen not to prevent it because of some purpose we don't know about. But when I asked for examples of what sort of purposes these might be, Mephi responded with examples that would, in my view, constitute God's doing the most God can do to maximize good and minimize evil. These were just more "variables" of the God-world relationship that condition God's action in that world.
For example, Jesus is on the water and speaks to the storm, "Peace be still" and boom, it's shut down. He goes to Nazareth and can't heal a single person because there's not enough faith on the part of other people. Now, Mephi wants to admit that God may very well have the muscel to part the waves in Nazareth and just heal some if he wanted to. But (and this is what started bringing us together) what God wants in Nazareth is not conditioned ONLY by the needs of the sick but by the needs of the whole. And my guess is that Nazareth's greater need was to learn to believe, to learn to reach out to God, to exercise faith, so God decided that healings in this case would only take place where there was faith even though it certainly seems that God performs some healings without any faith on the part of people. When Mephi talked about Nazareth and said God might have decided then that maximizing good and minimizing evil didn't mean the good and the evil as defined by, say, a sick little girl in Nazareth but as defined by the larger whole of Nazareth and the larger need of people to believe, I said, "Heck yah!" There's a long term GOOD to be had in the MANY learning to exercise faith and cry out to God that Nazareth needed more than they needed the immediate healing of their sick. Overall, it WAS maximizing good and minimizing evil for God to not act unilaterally on this occasion. But it certainly didn't maximize the good defined narrowly as the good of the sick.
Mephi seemed to agree that even when God parted the waters and acted "unilaterally" it was because God had a good and loving reason to do so. Unilaterally didn't mean whilly nilly. God's actions in the world are always in some way conditioned by the world. Mephi wants, it seems to me, to say that they're never conditioned ONLY by a part of the world, only within the borders of the sufferer. They're always conditioned by the whole, and maximizing good means the good of the WHOLE. And the good of the WHOLE might mean the sufferingn of the ONE.
Back to Carlie. Is it possible that God thought, "You know, given the variables of this immediate situtation, I got no demons on the radar to deal with. I can step in here and prevent this abduction. But there is a good to be had, a thousand possible "good's" to be had, in the circumstances following Carlie's death if it were to occur. So for the sake of that greater good I'm gonna let things take their course here."
Here's the deal. Can we say that "maximizing good and minimizing evil" in Carlie's case embraces the possible good to be had on the other side of Carlie's death? Can we say that if just Carlie is on one track and the wide-spread family healing, forgiveness, love, and resolve to oppose evil, etc. that's come about in response to Carlie's death is all on the other track that God switched the tracks in Carlie's direction? Is achieving a POSSIBLE good one of the varialbes God takes into consideration in situations like Carlie's? I'm wanting to say "yes." But this gets freaky, because I've up until now wanted to say that God only works to bring good out of evil once it's happened, but now I'm saying that the circumstances of some evils open doors to greater goods. If this itself were not true God wouldn't be able to bring ANY good out of evil situations once they happen. What I want to agree with Mephi on now is that God involves himself redemptively in all situations to maximize the good and minimize the evil OF THE WHOLE (and only God has that perspective) and that one of the many varialbes that God takes into account (a varialbe we have never talked about that I can remember) is infinite intelligence, i.e., knowledge of the possible and probable good that may follow in response to some evil like Carlie's. Perhaps God knows that a tragedy like Carlie's would affect a great many in Florida and the nation, affect Fathers to call their 11 year old daughters out of the backyard and into the living room to say, "I love you so much. I'm sorry for being so absent from your life. I could never lose you. Please forgive me for being so unloving," affect believers to take the brevity of life serious and get out there to love people and share the gospel while they've got a chance, affect young people considering the gospel to accept it now while they've got the chance, and on and on. Why cannot the good that's RESULTED from Carlie's death be (given God's infinite intelligence) a REASON, a varialbe, that determines the amount of muscel God flexes in the event, the level of his involvement? It would STILL be the case that God did ALL GOD COULD DO to maxmizie good and minimize evil…given the good of the WHOLE and the varialbes (present realities and FUTURE possibilities) at play.
So, I'm agreeing with Mephi that maximized good and minimized evil doesn't have to mean Carlie's good. It's the greater good of creation, a greater good which, given the sick world we live in, may be best served by Carlie's abduction and murder (i.e., switching the tacks) and not the greater good as defined by Carlie alone.
Now it seems that Mephi can agree that God does all God can do to maximize good and minimize evil, that there is one overarching all-defining all-embracing divine purpose for creation (God's getting glory through maximized love and goodness) but that this good is always a sum total of the equation as God alone sees it and not just the sum of Carlie's personal world.
Now, how about 9/11? Mephi was upset by Doc's unambiguous claim that this was from the evil one and God didn't want it to happen and did all he could to prevent it. But perhaps Mephi can concede now that this can be said about all evils provided we understand God's "doing all God can do" to mean not "doing all God could do for the good of the people in the buildings" but, in addition to this, "doing all God could do given the good of the world, taking into account the possible evil and possible good that would follow from a tragedy like this." And only God can run those trajectories out into the future and accurately take them into account. My point is, even if we grant the possible good is a variable that determines God's involvement in something like 9/11, we can still say unambiguously, "God did all God could do to prevent 9/11." Given the evil we live in, given God's commitment to our freedom, given God's freedom and the conditions under which he acts unilaterally, given the human and demonic variables, given the need to stir and wake a nation, given the possible good that follows and the faith that's embraced when people are affect by such tragedy, given the evil that follows and the faith that's abandoned when people are touched by such tragedies, given all this and more we'll never understand, the God who is love did all he could to bring about a situation where the WHOLE, the whole cosmos, could be moved closer to becoming a loving univserve that glorifies God. If God were to pull the curtain back on 9/11 and give us an understanding of ALL the varialbes as God knows them, honest and teachable people who bow in worship and say, "God is love. He made the most of a bad situation."
So, I've widened the varialbes and admitted that maximized good = the good of the whole and not necessarily the good of Carlie. And believe me, that makes me grieve MORE for her. But Mephi seems now willing to admit that the mystery IS about the interplay of varialbes in an evil world and not the character or purposes of God. We can posit a single all-defining LOVING purpose that God has for creation, but we can never know when in our evil world the suffering of the one may be required by the good of the whole. I can live with that. I can still say God does all God can do given all the varialbes across the board to prevent evil, to maximize love and minimize evil, and yet can agree with Mephi that given the evil world we live in, fulfilling that divine purpose for the greater WHOLE may best be served through some evil event. The good of the WHOLE is always present in every evil situation. And now Mephi can say even when the good of the WHOLE is best served through some evil that God did all God could do to prevent the evil, i.e., God's involvement in the event was unambiguously directed to fulfilling his goal for creation: Glory for God through maximized love and goodness.
Not sure I hit the mark.
Oh, one last thing. If it's ever true in our evil world that the good of the whole is best served by the suffering of the one and that God is involved in this, it's also true that God takes responsibility for it on the cross, experiencing evil in a way none of us can, taking it full in the face.
Mephi?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/14/2004 10:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi tells me persoally that he's super with my summary. It's right down the line OK by him. If it is with Doc, then we have reason to celebrate! Could it really be true?
One more thought. We usually boil down theodicies to this question: God either could have prevented this evil but didn't want to, or he wanted to prevent it but couldn't. Which is it? But can be answered either way even assuming Doc's basic approach or the middle approach Mephi and I seemed to agree on (which I think is Doc's basic approach, not sure). Doc has basically answered the question: God wanted to prevent it but couldn't. Mephi says no, that it sometimes may be that God could have prevented it but wouldn't. But depending on how one qualifies "want" and "can," one can express the same theodicy either way. In my view, in saying "God wanted to but couldn't" the "want" is unqualified (God is love and his overall purposes for creation are loving) but the "couldn't" is qualified (given the conditions under which God established the divine-creation relationship to work). A theological determinist would disagree with this and perhaps say "God could have prevented it but didn't want to" where the "could" is unqualified (God has the muscel, the sheer ability, to prevent any evil) and the "want" is qualified (given God's desires for different individuals, including his desire to decree evil). But depending on how one qualifies "want" and "can" one answers the question differently. I can see perfectly how, assuming the approach I just expressed in my preceding post, even I could say "God could have but didn't want to prevent Carlie's death," assuming that whatever God does he wants to do but without assuming that this "want" has to be unconditioned by the conditions of an evil world.
Brandon, back atcha in a bit. Gotta go shave, a necessary evil. Let's take another look at your question in light of how we've rephrased things.
Selah, are you cool with all this?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 2/14/2004 2:41 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Selah, are you cool with all this?
Tom
Sure, I'm ok. I'm preparing my brainstormed response to Mephi (which may take daysssssssss) but I'll open another thread when that is finished. I do think its helpful to clarify terms,linguistics and semantics ...so, thanks for that.
I also appreciated your use of the phrase "middle approach" -- I think there is one (although I'm not sure it is yours and Meph's). The middle approach you seem to describe is the "greater good" approach which still wants to ascribe some evil to God. It seems to me, (at least for now) that God brings good OUT of evil not brings evil in the first place. Wouldn't this be a sort of schizophrenic God?
Help me climb into your head and see how either of you can do God this way...
Taste and see that the Lord is good (AND evil?)
Every good gift comes from above (and some evil ones, but those are necessary because they are preventing more evil)
The fruit of God's spirit is love (unless SUPER non-love could be coming... in that case it is hate), joy (unless major sorrow could be coming, in that case it is despair), peace (unless war could be coming, in that case it is anxiety), patience (unless Super unrest could be coming, in that case it is impatience), kindness (unless it is necessary to be mean), goodness (unless you haven't a clue what that word means because the lines are so blurred by now...)
See what I mean??? Who the heck is God?
love
selah
PS I could see/enter-into/understand either of these perspectives:
Doc has basically answered the question: God wanted to prevent it but couldn't. Mephi says no, that it sometimes may be that God could have prevented it but wouldn't.
See,God is still hands off as originator. God is "allowing" or God just plain can't (given the world he chose to create) stop the evil that is bound to occur. ya, I get that. more later
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 2/14/2004 2:48 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Well, a person could disagree with me, but only if they disagree with Doc. See, Doc says (and with THIS, I would actually agree) that sometimes God has times where the "rook has to be sacrificed for the queen", in chess lingo. What this means is that sometimes God is placed in the position that, in order to maximize aesthetic value of Creation (that's minimizing evil and maximizing good at the same time), God has to deal with NECESSARY EVILS. Sacrificing the few or the one for the good of the MANY. The "train track" idea would be an example of this.
Ok, if you say "God is placed in the positon (by whom?) that, in order to maximize aesthetic value of Creation, God had to "deal" with necessary evil." I'd say, sure, got that...believe it.
I can do the chess thing as well( my son has been kickin my butt in chess since he was 3!), but don't you see that even in your own words God is responding to and not originating the sacrifice/evil?
quote:
Sure, God would have LIKED to not have to deal with evil at all...OR have to sometimes "tolerate necessary evils", but given the world God wanted to create, it comes with the territory. Right, Doc?
Doc??
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 2/14/2004 5:56 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I would say that I've been saying this all along.
Does anybody else remember an old thread where Meph and a couple others came to an agreement that the "good" was not necessarily defined in terms of how we are individually affected; for example, the glorification thing itself could be seen as a "good" (if one had a cosmic perspective, etc.) If I remember correctly, Doc agreed and even said he wish he had emphasized this point more in God at War (or SPE?). Deja vu? Anybody else? Or am I not remembering correctly? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/14/2004 6:22 PM (GMT -6) | | JET:
quote:
Does anybody else remember an old thread where Meph and a couple others came to an agreement that the "good" was not necessarily defined in terms of how we are individually affected; for example, the glorification thing itself could be seen as a "good" (if one had a cosmic perspective, etc.) If I remember correctly, Doc agreed and even said he wish he had emphasized this point more in God at War (or SPE?). Deja vu? Anybody else? Or am I not remembering correctly?
Yep. You are remembering correctly. Doc DID agree with a lot of the idea. The problem, as I recall, became that Doc didn't want to the apply the idea to SPECIFIC, PARTICULAR INSTANCES OF EVIL…meaning that we really COULD say that a Zosia, Sept. 11th, or Carlie event really COULD be orchestrated or allowed by God for greater good purposes. Doc wanted to keep the idea at a more broader boundary. But I kept telling him that he had NO reason to do that.
We saw this issue before. Doc didn't want to say that it was possible that God could actually PLACE someone in a position to be hurt, raped, or killed for some "greater good" / "train track" purposes that could NOT be readily discerned. Doc kept saying stuff like...
Well, if God can actually place a person in a position like that, how is God any different from the Devil, practically speaking???
I tried, and tried, and tried to explain the difference. But for some reason, we never quite gelled on it.
Now, we've come full circle. Tom has articulated what I believe masterfully. And he agrees with it and he's willing to take the corresponding ambiguity too! I'm hoping that since Tom is Doc's twin, that Doc will come around and we can ALL agree!
Doc, you betta come on in…
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 2/14/2004 8:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Dang, this discussion board can be addicting! I just need to chime in here. In what I am about to say I don't mean to come on so strongly but I can't stand it any longer! People, I think it's insensitive to be trying to solve your own theology by using such a recent tragedy. When Tom originally started this thread I thought he had done so because he was struggling with what had happened to this young precious girl's life and was trying to come to terms with it. I thought, hey, maybe more people will be able to process their grief over this tragedy as well and this would be good. However, now I am beginning to think that this may be hurtful for some readers if they personally knew Carli. The reason I say this is because the census appears to be that many are starting to believe that GOD allowed Carli's abduction and death for a GREATER GOOD. If I am understanding correctly people are saying that the Shepherd, who went off to find the ONE lost sheep, is somehow willing to not prevent this even though he could have because he sees a greater good by allowing her abduction and death???? Lord Jesus help us! What if someone who was very close to this precious young lady reads those words? Is this really what you believe the Shepherd to be like?
TGB said quote:
So, I'm agreeing with Mephi that maximized good and minimized evil doesn't have to mean Carlie's good. It's the greater good of creation, a greater good which, given the sick world we live in, may be best served by Carlie's abduction and murder (i.e., switching the tacks) and not the greater good as defined by Carlie alone
Mephi saidquote:
Doc didn't want to say that it was possible that God could actually PLACE someone in a position to be hurt, raped, or killed for some "greater good" / "train track" purposes that could NOT be readily discerned
Personally, I am praying that Doc maintains that stance. My favorite image of God is the one where he is holding the ONE lost sheep.
I want to share a story that I recieved from my best friend. He told this story in such a simple way that even a child could understand it (for unless we become like little children we will not see the Kingdom of heaven). This story tells us directly where God's involvement in evil lies and why God doesn't just do away with it right now. Please notice the part I underlined. Here it is:
"The Kingdom of Heaven is like a farmer who planted good seed in his field. But that night as everyone slept, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat. When the crop began to grow and produce grain, the weeds also grew. The farmer's servants came and told him, 'Sir, the field where you planted that good seed is full of weeds!'
'An enemy has done it!' the farmer exclaimed.
'Shall we pull out the weeds?' they asked.
He replied, 'No, you'll hurt the wheat if you do. Let both grow together until the harvest. Then I will tell the harvesters to sort out the weeds and burn them and to put the wheat in the barn.'"
"All right," he said. "I, the Son of Man, am the farmer who plants the good seed. The field is the world, and the good seed represents the people of the Kingdom. The weeds are the people who belong to the evil one. The enemy who planted the weeds among the wheat is the Devil."
Feelinahole said on a different thread quote:
As far as deism is concerned, I find I have no problem seeing God that way as far as a general view of miracles and his intervening in this life APART from working in us.
This is profound! For the most part, outside of working in our minds on a personal level (planting good seeds) God remains distant due to freewill. God most likely was at work trying to get through the murderers matrix. He very likely may have been planting statements like, "Don't do it. Walk away." Kind of like the picture with the man standing with an angel on one shoulder and the devil on the other both trying to steer the person's decision. God is involved at this level (through the Holy Spirit) but outside of that he can't get involved because everything that happens effects the next.
I am sorry if I am coming off too strong but my heart is breaking here because I think the image of God you are agreeing on can be very hurtful for people who have just gone through a tragedy. Tell someone that God took their loved one for a greater good and see what type of reaction you'll get. I know many people who have walked away from church because of such a view.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/14/2004 8:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah: I also appreciated your use of the phrase "middle approach" -- I think there is one (although I'm not sure it is yours and Meph's). The middle approach you seem to describe is the "greater good" approach which still wants to ascribe some evil to God. It seems to me, (at least for now) that God brings good OUT of evil not brings evil in the first place. Wouldn't this be a sort of schizophrenic God? Help me climb into your head and see how either of you can do God this way...
Tom: OK, I feel like my summary above is what I've always been saying. And it's what I've always believed Doc to be saying. So it's not a new "middle" ground for me in that sense. But it's a relief I think to discover how it is I can now articulate my view in a way Mephi can say yes to, and which turns out to be a summary of his view that I can say yes to.
But I didn't do such a great job explaining it if you understand me to have affirmed that God "brings about evil in the first place" or that I sometimes "ascribe evil to God." So, let me state for the record (and Mephi can confirm this if it's still his undertsanding too): God never causes evil. God never "brings about evil in the first place."
But since "cause" can mean different things, let me rehearse a couple scenarios I think some would see as "God causing evil" but which I would see as "God maximizing good and minimizing evil." Switching the train tracks to direct the train over one girl so that it doesn't go over a group of girl scouts. You're at the helm. You can switch the tracks to minimize evil. If you do nothing the group dies. If you switch the tracks the one girl dies. What do you do? If you switch the tracks you've minimized evil. Have you caused evil? I would say no. Now, some would say I "caused" evil and minimized good. I certainly didn't maximize the ONE girl's good. She's dead! But I did maximize the MANY girls' good. So how do I assess it all other than to say there was a maximizing of the good of the WHOLE and a minimizing of evil in my switching the tracks? Some would claim that maximizing good would be to have stood by and done nothing and let the train go over the group of girls. I wouldn't. I think that decision minimizes good and maximizes evil. And for what it's worth I think common sense is on my side.
All Mephi is saying is that given the integrity of free will, God's purpose to maximize love and goodness (which nobody seems to have heard Mephi CONCEDE!), and all the other varialbes you wanna throw into the stew, God sometimes switches the tracks. That's it.
This isn't "bringing about evil in the first place" either. On the contrary, it's a RESPONSE to evil. God never switches the tracks unless it's a response to a bad situation and is done with a view to minimizing evil in the world. But God responds to possible good and evils too. I mean we certainly make decisions based on possibilities. That's what infinite intelligence has argued God is perfect at doing. Now it's time to bring infinite intelligence into the pictures. Why WOULDN'T God figure in possible outcomes of situations he's dealing with now as part of the basis upon which he deals with those situations now? As far as I understand Doc, he's admitted that God sometimes sacrifices the rook for the Queen, and this sacrifice is made in the flow of time while interacting with all the varialbes at play, not simply by virtue of his having created us with free will.
Now, I could see saying "God is the ultimate cause of evil" in the sense that he created us with free will. But I'd say the same thing about myself being in some sense a cause of my kids' bad choices. I don't find using "cause" in this sense helpful at all because for me the "cause" is the responsible one, and I'm not responsible for my kids' bad choices simply by virtue of having decided to have kids. Nor is God a "cause" of any evil in this sense. If Mephi wants to claim that God is the cause of evil in the sense of being the "unsolicited" cause of evil then we have misunderstood each other and the marriage is over. But I don't think Mephi believe's that. Again, let's have Mephi chime in to confirm or deny it.
So God doesn't "cause" evil, unless of course you want to say that my switching the tracks as a last resort to direct it toward one person on the tracks so as to avoid ten people on the tracks amounts to my "causing" evil and being responsible for it. If that's somebody's view, then we ought to be talking about ethics and not theodicy.
OK, so what about Mephi's "glorification principle"? What happened to it? (Correct me if I'm wrong here Mephi, OK?) I understood this to be a divine secret purpose God had for creation over and against "maximized love and goodness," so it always seemed to me that the "glorification principle" was by definition something OTHER than "loving and good." What was it? It was "glory." Ooooo. So God get's glory out of switching the tracks when it has nothing whatsoever to do with maximizing love and goodness and minimizing evil. Wippeee! But that's not Mephi's "glorification principle." What we did this weekend that's so important (I think) is bring "glory" into God's revealed (no longer secret) purpose for creation. Now it's about God maximizing his glory in the universe THROUGH maximizing love and goodness and minimizing evil." Love and goodness glorify God. Evil doesn't. But GIVEN (oh man that word is so crucial now)…GIVEN an evil world, that purpose must SOMETIMES be fulfilled in situations where the future is racing toward a great evil (ten girls scouts on the tracks) and the only exit left for God is a lesser evil (one girl). This is not unsolicited divine causation of evil, no more than your switching the tracks to save ten (though one dies) is unsolicited involvment on your part.
Now Mephi can say unambiguously with respect to any evil that God did all God could do to prevent it, i.e., to maximize good and minimize evil. You mean right up to the last moment? Yes. On the scene, involved redemptively and lovingly? Yes.
Why has this been so long coming? Because Mephi thought that when we said "God maximizes good and minimizes evil" we meant ONLY (get it, ONLY) the good of the individual. That doesn't cover switching the tracks to prevent the greater evil. Nor does it cover sacrificing the rook to save the Queen. So Mephi created his "glorification principle" to account for this sort of stuff. My point was, that stuff IS covered by what we mean when we say God maximizes good and minimizes evil. "How so?" Mephi asked me. Because the good God maximizes is not LIMITED to the good of the individual. There is a good of the WHOLE that is at play as well. When I said that, it all fell together. Don't misunderstand me. We're not tossing out the good of the individual. We're saying that sometimes maximizing the good of an individual conflicts with maximizing the good of OTHER individuals, i.e., MORE individuals and that in such cases "maximizes" means just that, maximizes. There is a good that's larger than just MY good. Sometimes they're both equally maximizable. But sometimes in an evil world they're not, not because God doesn't wan't to maximize both, and not because God arranged that both not be symultaneously maximizable, but because their interrelated such that maximizing one (saving the ten girls on the tracks) means not being able to maximize the other (the one girl on the other tracks).
The greater good IN AN EVIL WORLD is not the sum total of the greatest good of all the individuals. It would be in a perfect world. But not in an evil world with all the variables Doc mentions.
Back to the girls on the tracks. If "the good" is defined ONLY as the good of the individual, that is, the individual's good IS THE ONLY GOOD THERE IS (in the class of humans, OK?) to maximize, and if your last option for having anything to do with maximizing good of all the individuals in this situation (the ten girls on one track and the one girl on another) is the handle that switches the tracks, what do you do? You HAVE to maximize the good of the ten individuals AND you HAVE to maximize the good of the one individual. See the dilemma? We have to define "maximizing the good" as the good of the WHOLE. Sometimes the good of the whole stands on the good of the one and God's "doing all he can do" is uncomplicated by having to deal with greater and lesser evils. But sometimes the good of the whole is distributed over many individuals whose individual "good" conflicts (as in the train tracks). If I do all I can do to save the ONE, the TEN die. If I do all I can do to save the TEN, the one dies. Do we want to say God NEVER faces such choices? C'mon! In our screwed up evil, war-torn world?
So, I've already done all I can do to save ALL TEN girls and--given freedom and creation variables--did not succeed. This is the last exit. What do I do? Nothing? To do nothing when you could do something is to choose to maximize the good of the ONE and not the TEN. That's problematic for me and I can't see God acting in this way. I can tell ya this, Satan is working to maximize the evil of the WHOLE. If he has a choice between trashing TEN or ONE he'll take TEN every time. Are we really opposing Satan if we do NOT switch the tracks to save the ten and concede the one?
So unless you want to say that in an evil world the individual good of one person (or some) NEVER conflicts with the individual good of another person (or other persons), you have to concede that there IS a "good of the WHOLE" in an evil world that sometimes means the good of an individual is NOT maximized. That this is sometimes the case is NOT caused by God. It's caused by Satan. A good and loving God in this situation does the best a good and loving God can do even when individual "good's" conflict (which I can't believe anybody except a determinist will want to try to deny).
So, what happened to Mephi's "glorification principle" that once stood over and against God's "loving purpose to maximize good and minimize evil" in our evil world? It no longer stands over and against God's loving purpose to maximize good and minimize evil because the good embraces the WHOLE and not ONLY the individual. That's allowed Mephi to bring what (I thought) once stood over and against maximized goodness right into the heart of God's loving purpose to maximize good in creation! Poof!
Selah: Taste and see that the Lord is good (AND evil?)
Tom: Not evil. Am I evil if I switch the tracks to save the ten when it means the one will die? If I am, then there IS no such thing as "the good of the WHOLE." But we know there is.
Selah: Every good gift comes from above (and some evil ones, but those are necessary because they are preventing more evil).
Tom: Is it or is it not a GOOD thing when faced with two crummy options (one a great evil and one a lesser evil) to go with the lesser evil? We certainly face such situations. Are we going to that in an evil world like ours God never faces such situations?
Selah: The fruit of God's spirit is love (unless SUPER non-love could be coming... in that case it is hate), joy (unless major sorrow could be coming, in that case it is despair), peace (unless war could be coming, in that case it is anxiety), patience (unless Super unrest could be coming, in that case it is impatience), kindness (unless it is necessary to be mean), goodness (unless you haven't a clue what that word means because the lines are so blurred by now...)
Tom: How about the fruit of the Spirit is love even in an evil world when we're faced with less than perfect options? We still choose the most loving thing to do. That's a fruit of the Spirit.
Selah (to Mephi): Ok, if you say "God is placed in the positon" (by whom?) that, in order to maximize aesthetic value of Creation, God had to 'deal' with necessary evil." I'd say, sure, got that...believe it.
Tom: Well, there ya go. What's the problem? God is placed in that position by Satan, or demons, or human wills intent on commiting evil. THEY, not God, sometimes bring it about that the good of individuals in separate but interconnected situations cannot, given the variables and all, be conjointly maximized. It happens.
Selah: I can do the chess thing as well( my son has been kickin my butt in chess since he was 3!), but don't you see that even in your own words God is responding to and not originating the sacrifice/evil?
Tom: Yes, God is RESPONDING to evil in such cases, just as in chess. If Mephi said God "originates" or "causes" evil then he'll GET ON HIS KNEES right now and repent and take back what the Devil done stole from him!
It's all yours Mephi.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/14/2004 8:54 PM (GMT -6) | | questfortruth: If I am understanding correctly people are saying that the Shepherd, who went off to find the ONE lost sheep, is somehow willing to not prevent this even though he could have...
Tom: You're not understanding correctly. No problem. Let me ask you a question: Ten sheep are being attacked by some wolves on one bluff of a meadow and one sheep is being attacked by a wolf on another bluff of a meadow. There's some distance between the two situations and the one shepherd can't get to both (given the restraints of the world he has to live in). He can save the one or he can save the ten. He can't do both (given the restraints of the variables he has to work with in this situation). What would you have your loving shepherd do?
You can respond in one of three ways:
1) You can deny that the God is ever in such a position in our world.
2) You can say the shepherd should do nothing because choosing one rescue over the other would implicate him in the death of the unrescued sheep. That way all the sheep die and the shepherd's not to blame!
3) You can say that since the shepherd is a GOOD shepherd he'd maximize the good and save the MORE and leave the ONE to die.
Welcome to theodicy! How's your "quest" for truth? 
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| 777 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:05 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 |
|
|