For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
The gross shortcoming of the theodicy of redemptive suffering -- that "shadows are needed to set off highlights" -- is that if God is really all-powerful, he is not forced to take these painful routes toward the creation of "perfectly good" experiences.
Says WHO? Suffering appears to have its Divine Place.
And if God IS forced to use evil to create good, or is even inclined to do so, his omnipotence and omnibenevolence are rendered less than cosmic.
Again, so says WHO? Superiority over ALL THINGS puts nothing out of HIS Overwhelming...
I might believe a God who can make good come of evil or make same serve Him would be pretty cool.
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
Good response! But even if people don't remember an atrocity, I'm not convinced forgetfulness truly nullifies the horror. As a historical event it's locked into place and unalterable.
Perhaps you will permit me to rephrase. All monotheistic religions struggle to understand the current existence of a binary or dualistic system, namely "good and evil." This is a fundamental problem with formal monotheism, and in an important sense is a contradiction in terms. Why would God permit his polar opposite to be created? So that a world of already total and unanimous goodness might become... more good? But isn't that a contradiction?
Says WHO? Suffering appears to have its Divine Place.
Again, so says WHO? Superiority over ALL THINGS puts nothing out of HIS Overwhelming...
So God is NOT forced to use evil to create good. Then he chooses to create evil, in effect, to slice the world in two, in order to create good. But the best possible good already existed, didn't it?
Granted, the rationalizing side of theodicy has its limits -- I'd be the first to admit it -- but it helps us understand why systems of theology have taken certain avenues and been forced to take certain others. I'm not trying to disprove anything -- I merely wish to point out the issues that Christian thinkers wrestle with every day. You seem to be saying that it's an easy fix, that there is no real difficulty but only one illusory and fabricated, but in fact, the millions of people pulling their hair out every day suggest otherwise.
I might believe a God who can make good come of evil or make same serve Him would be pretty cool.
I believe that a God who comes and suffers with me IS pretty cool
I also think that's much truer to the gospel than speculations based on God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
__________________
...Do not let me hear
Of the wisdom of old men, but rather of their folly,
Their fear of fear and frenzy, their fear of possession, Of belonging to another, or to others, or to God. The only wisdom we can hope to acquire Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
Good response! But even if people don't remember an atrocity, I'm not convinced forgetfulness truly nullifies the horror. As a historical event it's locked into place and unalterable.
Scripture tells us that suffering does serve many purposes. As Isaiah noted and even as Paul notes here, when we actually 'see' the future produce, this is how we will view these matters:
For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
Perhaps you will permit me to rephrase. All monotheistic religions struggle to understand the current existence of a binary or dualistic system, namely "good and evil." This is a fundamental problem with formal monotheism, and in an important sense is a contradiction in terms. Why would God permit his polar opposite to be created?
I sometimes use a very basic explanation, because I'm a big road cycle guy. Do you know that to handle a large motorcycle on the road when turning right, that you actually turn the wheel to the opposite direction?
There are many contradictory functions in the text, and many of them when first encountered don't seem to make any sense whatsoever, just like turning a big Harley to the right means turning left. But it's a solid fact.
When the flower is plucked from the turd and the flower set upon the table, the turd discarded is not even thought of any longer. When we look at the flower we could care less where it came from because of its' sheer beauty. Yet that flower was nourished by discarded crap.
So it is with evil.
This exact same 'parable' is given to us in the N.T. about 'dunging the roots' in order to either produce fruit, or if not, then get rid of the tree:
Luke 13:
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? 8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: 9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.
This is in effect analogous to mankind and our immersion in EVIL. There are many corollaries in the O.T. i.e. taking root 'downward' and 'bearing fruit' upward.
So that a world of already total and unanimous goodness might become... more good? But isn't that a contradiction?
I could list a multitude of Divine Scriptural Purposes about Gods deployment and uses of EVIL.
So God is NOT forced to use evil to create good.
Well, I suspect that He could have made a flower pop up out of thin air, but that may not be nearly as much fun eh?
God LOVES 'judgment.' IF He has chosen to deploy LOVE into the midst of a very real resistance to 'test' same, what are we to say of it?
Making a flower pop up out of thin air is probably far less pleasurable for God than making something good come out of something bad.
He seems to get a kick out of that process.
Then he chooses to create evil, in effect, to slice the world in two, in order to create good. But the best possible good already existed, didn't it?
If the result of creation was merely to 'replicate' Himself, I mean really? Is there some point in that? No need to have multiple reflections of the SAME PERFECTION.
In the world of theology we have only ONE PERFECT undefinable ONE. None of us know in full what that is or consists of, and to tell you the truth, do we really want to find out the END of HIM? Is there a point in placing a fence somewhere on the outskirts of eternity so we can ride out to the end of it and say...OK,,,that's it. That's all there is?
No. Not to me anyway. I kind of enjoy the thought of the NEVER ENDING. It gives me some form of 'internal comfort' not having to ride out to the end of the fence and find nothing more. That would be like trapped in an eternal box...blah....that WOULD be hell.
The contemplation of eternity is a valuable commodity for the heart, and a valid deployment for the field of theology to examine.
In this context I could imagine that soooo many things could be tested and deployed along the lines of eternity that various scenarios that are well beyond my imaginations could be in store in the ages to come.
So, in the end, we have HIM and then EVERYTHING ELSE as a 'lesser comparison' that will never supplant the PRIMARY.
Granted, the rationalizing side of theodicy has its limits -- I'd be the first to admit it -- but it helps us understand why systems of theology have taken certain avenues and been forced to take certain others.
As you may tell, I have very little respect for 'old school' orthodoxy. They were developed primarily as social control systems. Very manipulative imho. And closed minded? uh, yeah. It's just a much more interesting field than those old school erection sets have provided for us. I could go on, but outside the topic matters herein. I will say that IF we are examining Gods Words we may have to give them as much respect as we do the term 'ETERNITY.' There is a LOT more there than we can presently see. So, I keep studying and keep reading. It's just a most fascinating document.
I'm not trying to disprove anything -- I merely wish to point out the issues that Christian thinkers wrestle with every day. You seem to be saying that it's an easy fix, that there is no real difficulty but only one illusory and fabricated, but in fact, the millions of people pulling their hair out every day suggest otherwise.
When people try to make certain cut and locked positions, such as GOD CANNOT CREATE EVIL or He IS evil, that is just nonsense. Petty logic can get by that one in an instant. Yet we have millions of orthodoxy who hold that position til their dying breath, and will continue to do so.
Let 'em wallow in their own constructs. They'll die off sooner or later out of the weight of their own refusal to apply critical thinking to what they do. History will show their demise out of ignorance.
I will say that they have provided us a terrible and divisive legacy on many fronts. But some are starting to see past all of that MANipulation and look to the fronts that ARE more valuable in the texts OVER control, and that is simply to love our neighbors as ourselves. To do that, some really false positions that are outright AGAINST others have to go away in order to 'get along' properly.
There are other avenues for 'proper scriptural judgments' available that are much kinder to our neighbors and MUCH more accurate to the text.
I believe that a God who comes and suffers with me IS pretty cool
He has had His share with me, that's fer sure.
I also think that's much truer to the gospel than speculations based on God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
Scripture tells us that suffering does serve many purposes. As Isaiah noted and even as Paul notes here, when we actually 'see' the future produce, this is how we will view these matters:
For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
I agree that the New Testament and Isaiah assume the theodicy of redemptive suffering. I'm just not convinced that it's philosophically "easy" to take that route. Good thing most Christians are not also philosophers! (And maybe they don't need to be.)
I sometimes use a very basic explanation, because I'm a big road cycle guy. Do you know that to handle a large motorcycle on the road when turning right, that you actually turn the wheel to the opposite direction?
There are many contradictory functions in the text, and many of them when first encountered don't seem to make any sense whatsoever, just like turning a big Harley to the right means turning left. But it's a solid fact.
Dude, I LOVE paradoxical truth. I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate, pointing out the "solid facts" that MAKE it paradoxical.
When the flower is plucked from the turd and the flower set upon the table, the turd discarded is not even thought of any longer. When we look at the flower we could care less where it came from because of its' sheer beauty. Yet that flower was nourished by discarded crap.
So it is with evil.
Too bad we have to say turd on CF and not [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].
Well, I suspect that He could have made a flower pop up out of thin air, but that may not be nearly as much fun eh?
Try to comfort someone in pain that God could have done everything perfectly without making them suffer, but thought that this route might be more amusing
God LOVES 'judgment.' IF He has chosen to deploy LOVE into the midst of a very real resistance to 'test' same, what are we to say of it?
The same that Job said, I suppose. It would be a shame to think that we don't have to say it, just because he already did. I hope that wasn't the original intent!
If the result of creation was merely to 'replicate' Himself, I mean really? Is there some point in that? No need to have multiple reflections of the SAME PERFECTION.
You're right. That "Christ-likeness" thing that preachers rail on about was sounding pretty dubious already, but now that you mention it......
In this context I could imagine that soooo many things could be tested and deployed along the lines of eternity that various scenarios that are well beyond my imaginations could be in store in the ages to come.
But the question is, WHY could ANY of them require a world plagued by evil for the length and breadth of human history, if GOD is "omnipotent" and "omnibenevolent"????
As you may tell, I have very little respect for 'old school' orthodoxy. They were developed primarily as social control systems. Very manipulative imho. And closed minded? uh, yeah. It's just a much more interesting field than those old school erection sets have provided for us. I could go on, but outside the topic matters herein. I will say that IF we are examining Gods Words we may have to give them as much respect as we do the term 'ETERNITY.' There is a LOT more there than we can presently see. So, I keep studying and keep reading. It's just a most fascinating document.
To this effect, I like the Matrix's take on things. We fight to the death to escape one system of control, only to find ourselves smack dab in another one. A bit cynical, I suppose, but it seems to be accurate. I've started to assume that I'm ALWAYS been controlled and manipulated, even if I'm not aware of it.
When people try to make certain cut and locked positions, such as GOD CANNOT CREATE EVIL or He IS evil, that is just nonsense. Petty logic can get by that one in an instant. Yet we have millions of orthodoxy who hold that position til their dying breath, and will continue to do so.
I'm not trying to create a locked position. Nor do I believe that God is EVIL just because he created or is responsible for the creation of evil. However, I do think that it is a philosophical problem commonly called "theodicy" (literally, the justification of God) and it is EXACTLY what we are wrestling with right now. Even Paul realized it, otherwise he would not have needed to remind the Roman Christians that their present suffering was outweighed by the "pie in the sky" promise of fortune and glory.
We think alot alike.
You're probably a bit older and wiser than me, that's the main difference.
__________________
...Do not let me hear
Of the wisdom of old men, but rather of their folly,
Their fear of fear and frenzy, their fear of possession, Of belonging to another, or to others, or to God. The only wisdom we can hope to acquire Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
Dude, I LOVE paradoxical truth. I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate, pointing out the "solid facts" that MAKE it paradoxical.
Call us contrarians then. Many have a very hard time with the concept as well as 'simultaneous' truth i.e. what can be true for one party (Gods Love) can be arousing and provoking to other parties (the devil et al.)
Too bad we have to say turd on CF and not [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].
heh heh heh
Try to comfort someone in pain that God could have done everything perfectly without making them suffer, but thought that this route might be more amusing
I struggle with this concept still. Like 'why not just GET OVER IT!?' But then things like patience and perseverance come to play and really dig out some deep scars.
I have thought that great HOPE was fostered in Christ, as in I HOPE THEY STOP WHIPPING ME!
Quick and very painful or slow n agonizing...hmmm...so many selections.
But the question is, WHY could ANY of them require a world plagued by evil for the length and breadth of human history, if GOD is "omnipotent" and "omnibenevolent"????
Well, I've kinda set you up for what can be generally termed as the 'expansion principle' i.e. God is NEVER static but EVER LIVING, ever ecompassing, never finding that ultimate 'ending' i.e. can eternal life become eternally dead? That may be one thing not in the cards of The Eternal One. This general concept has provided me a great deal of idle time speculations i.e. God really is NO THING...so what is THAT anyway? Mystics even eastern thougt have termed this The Great Void, which when viewed in singularity void of any personal thought reflection of same becomes yet another trap upon essence of the no thing as both all things and no things are there.
And from there one engages in 'speculative theology' aka Theosopy. Quite a fascinating and personal voyage.
To this effect, I like the Matrix's take on things. We fight to the death to escape one system of control, only to find ourselves smack dab in another one. A bit cynical, I suppose, but it seems to be accurate. I've started to assume that I'm ALWAYS been controlled and manipulated, even if I'm not aware of it.
Ah! Another paradoxical TRUTH! heh heh heh. God really IS all there is yet He is 'no thing.' Amazing paradox there. Just amazing.
I'm not trying to create a locked position. Nor do I believe that God is EVIL just because he created or is responsible for the creation of evil.
I read a piece a great while back, I believe from a cut of Jacob Boehme, and many of his views on these matters I also have 'experienced' in 'thought/revelatory life.' His view was that darkness is a portion of God, as no thought is escapable from the OM's or in essence 'all thoughts' are available from Him and For Him. An interesting premise. In there Boehme (if I recall) postulated that God is using creation at least in part to play out and weigh all of those particular matters in various forms of judgments and siftings, to eventually exhaust the entirety of that portion of darkness, extracting all it will yield in the transposition of good, i.e. the turd and the flower principles run on to 'whenever' ending in the NonDescript Void.
If we looked at the history of the immensity of the 'thought lives' of mankind the potential mining field for judgments there available in Gods behalf of uses are quite overwhelming, most of same being extremely obscure, not 'visible' to the naked eye so to speak. Revelation describes this as the 'woman' (mankind) being helped by the earth (our bodies) swallowing up the Dragons flood (evil thoughts and deeds, mostly thoughts.)
However, I do think that it is a philosophical problem commonly called "theodicy" (literally, the justification of God) and it is EXACTLY what we are wrestling with right now. Even Paul realized it, otherwise he would not have needed to remind the Roman Christians that their present suffering was outweighed by the "pie in the sky" promise of fortune and glory.
Yeah, I kinda hate that 'I'll pay you thursday for a hamburger today' mentality/bait dangling. I do consider Paul put that thought out there specifically for present tense speculations in hope that there would be some 'spillover' effect into reality... Why trade off a temporal binding for an open range?
You're probably a bit older and wiser than me, that's the main difference.
Older 4 sure. A minutes worth of revelatory cohesion can make an elder sage of anyone.
enjoy!
squint
Last edited by squint; 13th October 2009 at 01:33 AM.
Linear Mode
