I am trying to stay on topic, which is the problem of evil and nature of God. So, while I do not disagree with the notion that pain is part and parcel with our current existence, God will save the creation from sin, suffering, pain and destruction at the completion of His creative endeavors.
I think you are looking to the end of this creation, which is a different understanding of completion.
You would therefore be suggesting that this world we live in is still a work in progress?
I am not convinced God needs millions of years to perfect things. As God He would get it right fist time
IOW there is an underlying criticism of this creation that is being placed at Godâs door that I do not believe is just or accurate. There is no problem of evil that God has not already solved or rather accounted for. To think otherwise is to judge God as either, incompetent, tainted with evil or just evil. None of which sits comfortably with me.
Richard
PS If God allows evil, which would appear to be the case. How can He punish practitioners of it? That would be a double standard or gargantuan proportions.
Caveat: That would not apply to people who were either trying to be, or expected to be Holy (as in Godâs chosen race)
As I recall, youâre a teacher, so youâve probably had to listen to similar rants over the years! (Most of my family members are or have been teachers, so I donât think youâve entirely made this up!)
Iâm no fan of Nietzscheâs will to power: weâve all seen the historical results of that. I do think, though, that thereâs a certain dangerous kind of dualism that can result if we try to say that love creates weaklings and atrocious backgrounds create moral heroes.
Maybe the problem is that we think we understand what Jesus meant by love and forgiveness, but we donât. And we think we understand the crucible that creates a moral hero, but we donât.
I should also add that to a certain group of individuals who embrace a moral code based on exceptionalism (regardless of religious affiliation), Hitler looks like a moral hero. (Thanks a helluva lot, Nietzsche.)
1 Like
That sounds plausible to me. It doesnât stop us from our heavily enculturated speculations about the ingredients of heroism, though!
Perhaps I can also choose our oh-so-familiarly gendered stereotypes to also help drive at what disturbs me here. I think I once heard it attributed to C.S. Lewis that, if he had his way, a boy-child wouldnât come into contact with any man (not even his father) until he had reached the age of about 3. And after that he would never see another woman for the rest of his coming-of-age years (especially not his mother). A sledge-hammer way to make a point, to be sure - the point being that mothers (in this trope) are nurturing and âsoftâ and only needed in the childâs development when a child is indeed obliged to be entirely needy (not weaned). And fathers are challenging and hard (and can forego those oh-so-deadly sympathies) when a child is finally ready to âbecome a manâ - and can only do so if the apron strings to his mother have been severed.
Donât get me wrong - I donât buy these gendered tropes that are still alive and well now in many groups and would have been almost omnipresent in Lewisâ generations. For one thing, Iâve known many fathers who were (very commendably) gentle and nurturing - or who could even (not-so-commendably) play the âfull-mama-bearâ part of bringing a âmy-child-can-do-no-wrongâ attitude to school and to parent-teacher conferences with them in every bit the way that any over-attached mother could ever have done. And I have seen women able to challenge their children with every bit of the so-called âmasculineâ priorities of preparing their children for the hardships of full adulthood. So I donât buy for a second (as Lewisâ generation and so many before did) that the spiritual gifts of tenderness and love (so-called effeminate gifts) were the province only [or mostly] of women, and that the gifts of challenge and provocation toward toughness are the [nearly] exclusive dominion of men. Nor do I find that division to be in any way biblical.
But just because that division of needed gifts has had such an unfortunate history of becoming gendered, doesnât mean that either of those classes of gifts should be neglected. And right now it seems to me that perhaps this division of gifts might be suffering an even more unfortunate parsing: a political one! I.e. the urges toward tenderness, compassion, and love right now have probably enjoyed a somewhat elevated status in our culture right now as the more important and needed gifts (for a lot of very good reasons, no doubt) but then leaving some of the âcounter-partâ (toughness) gifts a bit more out in the cold. (And itâs not been lost, even among âenglightenedâ and left leaning culture that gentleness and love have been the province of the female world - hence a perceived elevation of females and perceived denigration of males). The political right (which in its own way also had never let go of the gendered division of old) has been quick to take up the âour young boys need to be challenged and pushedâ in a way that the left has largely now abandoned to them (and the right, correspondingly has abandoned âloveâ or compassion as liberal and even effeminate things). Think of the Jordan Peterson phenomenon. He hits back at all this, and hits hard - and young men eat it up with a thirst that wonât be denied.
I know this gets away from how I titled this topic - because while I certainly see the good of love and tenderness, Iâm not at all implying that toughness and challenge are automatically evil. But perhaps due to unfortunate politics - that side has been rubbing elbows with lots of evil, (a charge they would also apply against liberals and where they think liberals may be taking âloveâ).
In any case, all the gifts of the Spirit are still there - given for everyoneâs use, and not to be limited by all our stingy parceling of them only to one group or another.
1 Like
I donât think Nietzsche was a fan of it either.
So while the will to power in itself is neither good nor bad, Nietzsche very clearly prefers some ways in which it expresses itself to others. He doesnât advocate the pursuit of power. Rather, he praises the sublimation of the will to power into creative activity.
In similar fashion no one is a fan of evil but we all value free will and greatly prefer to see that channeled in positive, loving ways. No one loves sin but you cannot drive it out of existence and still retain free will.
Well, Iâm relieved to hear it. I thought it all sounded completely out of character. I obviously missed your note at the end of your post.
I think regarding all the problems, itâs hard to lay them all bare, since there are so many variations in individual formation, even within the same family.
But yes, itks valuable to demonstrate the foolishness of âtraditionalâ or âconventionalâ âwisdom.â
Not to worry. I donât think of you as someone who draws rigid boundaries on people or forgets that we all have our own gifts to bring to the conversation. But itâs good to pay attention to whatâs going on in society, and thereâs nothing wrong with making observations about the way things are sorting out, even if you donât personally live according to that way of sorting things out.
Agreed with multiple exclamation points!
I think in some ways itâs the question of gifts that is causing so much trouble in our society. What exactly is a gift? What exactly is a talent? Can anybody be anything they want (as some leaders preach)? Is hard work and practice enough to push oneâs efforts into âgiftâ territory? Are there any genetic limitations on gifts and talents? Are there any gender limitations? How does God fit into the picture? If you believe in God, do you think itâs okay to pray to be given a specific gift? If so, how will you feel if you donât get the talent youâve asked for? If you receive a gift, are you supposed to consider yourself only an empty vessel, or do you have any agency in the creations that result?
Is it simpler to not ask any of these questions and instead fall in line with the cultural norms that are dictated by oneâs particular family or community?
I personally donât hold to the theory that you can put rigid boxes around anything to do with gifts and talents. Weâre all born with strengths and absences-of-strengths because each soul is unique and each soul has a unique blend of strengths and absences-of-strengths that we can uncover and develop during our human lives if we have the right mentors â mentors who just want us to learn to trust ourselves.
Iâm the mother of two sons. My younger son â the one who died of leukemia as a young child â was the gentlest soul you could imagine. He didnât like rough and tumble play. He didnât like rambunctious TV characters. He loved gentle music and pale blue clothes (he was very particular about his clothes). But when he got sick, he was like a warrior, filled with courage and trust and acceptance in ways Iâd never seen before in anyone, let alone a child. He was an amazing mentor for me (though it took me years to understand this).
Meanwhile, my older son loved stories about superheroes, wanted to learn all about WWII planes from the time he was 5, didnât care what he wore as long as there was a superhero on the shirt, and was very coordinated (though he had no interest in hockey â to his fatherâs horror!). Today, heâs the father of two young girls, and heâs both gentle and tough with them (tough in terms of setting limits when needed). He and my daughter-in-law share equally in parenting and household tasks, but heâs better at cleaning the bathrooms because I made him learn to clean his bathroom when he was growing up. He has also been a mentor for me, but in completely different ways.
Iâm glad you donât agree with this assessment, Merv. My sons would have been in big trouble if theyâd had to learn about practical things from my ex-husband. I was the only one in the house who knew how to use the tools in the toolbox.
2 Likes
Agreed. And had I been less careless with words, I might have chosen the word âfruitâ more than âgiftâ because I definitely had in mind things that not only should everyone (especially every Christian) be expected to exhibit or at least strive to exhibit, but that scriptures refuse to withhold from any subset of people. I.e. We never read "And these fruits should only be looked for in women, or only in men, or only in children, or only in Jews, etc. But we do read instead that all those latter categories are almost next to banished from carrying any kind of separatist role at all! âThere is no longer Jew nor Greek, male nor femaleâ, etc.
So as to things like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, âŚand all the rest; we are told to strive for them (especially love). And I think we can think of them as gifts at least in our posture of realizing that we arenât coming by those things on our own. They are indeed gifts. But these are gifts that (paradoxically) we can cultivate and nourish in ourselves and others, and as such maybe the label âfruitâ is better. When the fruit is not there, or it is bad fruit; we are to discern something from that fact. Does listening so such and such a feed on social media make me more loving, more patient, more gentle, more inclined to love my enemies? Or does it do the opposite? The answer to that question clues me in as to whether such material is from above or from below - or at least clues me in to the effect itâs having on me anyway.
I certainly donât. But my reason for using it is because it does shine a spotlight on two seemingly contrary tendencies we have toward our loved ones. The tendency to coddle, and the tendency to push. Both are needed in their respective seasons, I think we can all agree. Iâm glad you were able to accomodate to both sides of that in the measures necessary for each of your sons. Many a parent has been obliged to know both sides - not just in one parent families but in two-parent and extended family dynamics as well. It takes a village.
2 Likes
So returning to your starting post (partway through this thread), itâs interesting, I think, that weâve begun talking about teachers and families and fruits, how to raise children, how to take personal responsibility for being âmore loving, more patient, more gentle, more inclined to love my enemies?â
How do you understand moral heroes in light of these lived experiences that weâve all been tossing around?
Of course Christ is the quintessential moral hero for me. That said, then I find other heroes in the extent to which they are like Christ in shunning the ways of wealth, money, power, or revenge - and pursuing instead the good of even their enemy at their own expense. So people like MLK Jr or Mandela or Gandhi would be among some of those for me. And I donât even look for moral perfection from my heroes. Itâs a well worn trope that some of these were womanizers or had various other hypocrisies or faults in their lives (usually pointed out by disingenuous detractors who - in my view- only bring judgment on themselves by pushing such dismissal). I donât justify or ignore that in them - they will face God with whatever all they have - I only see them as heroes because they were able to latch onto Christâs teachings (sometimes even from outside of formal âmembershipâ - Gandhi) and to follow Christ where it counted and cost them dearly.
But those are the spectacular and well known heroes. I also admire the day-to-day people around us who set their faces toward kingdom ways (and against the world and all the power-plays the world worships), and they do so one kind word, one kind deed at a time. Often intermittently. Often with much backsliding themselves, but always sensitive to that and quick to want to do better.
And that includes parents just trying to do the best by their kids, but wanting their kids and their entire family to be a blessing to the rest of the world too, and in that pursuit raises up their family to try to leave their communities and world a better place than they found it. I admire such people, and occassionally, on my best days, I might manage to partially be that for someone myself. But there are people who do this, and seem to do it well.
1 Like
I think i align with this post except the subjective bit.
Its quite obvious that the entire purpose of the biblical narrative is to explain the how it happened, the fix, and the future result of the fix.
The book of Revelation makes it quite clear that salvation is about RESTORATION of that which was corrupted by sin to its former glory. The âthatâ which was corrupted is clearly âall creationâ. I donât see anything subjective about this as the bible clearly states its purpose. Beyond the comprehension of normal language, there is no interpretation required there.
I donât personally have any issue with the nature of God and the problem of Evil. To those of us who allow the bible to explain itself, its really easy to accept sin and its consequences. As for how can God allow thisâŚthat to me is a bit of a stupid questionâŚlast time i checked in the mirror, i wasnât looking at a programmed robot. I am able to choose what i want to do. The only thing that we must recognise is that whilst we are allowed to make our own choices, the consequences of those choices are set in stone (ten commandments). Ultimately, sin will be wiped from the universe because it is the very opposite of God.
God knowing what sin is doesnt make Him evil anymore than my knowing what stealing is makes me a thief. So the claim i hear from time to time âGod said in Genesis, we need to stop man from eating of the tree of Good and Evil lest we become like God knowing good and evilâ, that does not mean its Gods fault Lucifer rebelled and brought evil to the universe. To me thatâs like saying a parent of a serial killer should never have experienced the miracle of having and raising a childâŚare we really going to sanction the ideology of the movie âMinority Reportâ (with Tom Cruise) and apply that Creation and God? I donât think so!
by subjective, I mean anyone (person) is free to respond as they determine.
A bit late to the discussion but none of the four is correct, I would have voted for - God is good, but to define and understand good the opposite must exist.
Following Plato -
The Cycle of Opposites
âThe first argument is based on the cyclical interchange by means of which every quality comes into being from its own opposite. Hot comes from cold and cold from hot: that is, hot things are just cold things that have warmed up, and cold things are just hot things that have cooled off. Similarly, people who are awake are just people who were asleep but then woke up, while people who are asleep are just people who were awake but then dozed off.â
From Gen 3:22 - Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.
God knew, the heavenly audience too. God wanted to save mankind from this knowledge and experience, but mankind with its inborn curiosity insisted to know about evil and thus God gave us what we wanted so dearly, kicked out of Paradise on a place full of good and evil.
Evil is the opposite of good, Evil is the opposite of God.
2 Likes
Hence The Devil & Go(o)d
Richard
At least in some contexts, evil is more an absence of good, rather than exactly its opposite.
So there is no such thing a neutral?
The world is not black & white and neither is goodness nor any counterpart.
Ironically there can good acts that rerult in evil results and vice versa.
I guess evil and goodness can be in the eye of the beholder (or recipient)
Richard
Point being as the subject line suggest (Problem of Evil) is that there is no problem, (unfortunately) evil must exist as a logical consequence that God is good. The problem is more that God allowed His creatures free will and as such evil could rare its ugly head beginning with the devil.
1 Like
Maybe indifference is even worse.
1 Like
That is the wrong understanding of neutral.
Neutrality is being neither good, or bad. Walking is morally neutral, but where you walk may change that
Richard
Iâm thinking of things like not doing a specific good that that is within oneâs power to do. While that is not actively doing something bad, it is still an absence of doing something good, and as such, is an evil.