The Conjunction of Opposites

[Colo Millz]

Gen 1:2 shows us a dark, unform world of chaos that is transformed by light ending in it's antithesis of the 7th day contrasting incomplete/complete, dark/light, empty/full, disorder/order, chaos/rest, etc... Rest is shown as the answer to the chaos not it's compliment. Creation can can be viewed as a salvation metaphor where we are the darkness that light is spoken into and we are transformed into rest. It can also foreshadow Christ, baptism, the resurrection, and the new heaven and earth among others.

Christ does not find harmony with death, he conquers it. Revelation does not show us an great equalization, it instead takes death and Hades and the sea (the "deep" of Gen 1:2) and throws them in the lake of fire. Then heaven and earth pass away to present a new heaven and earth as one, spiritual/physical as one, where there is no death or pain.

I don't see the Biblical narrative as a yin/yang justice, although in this time the two are contrasted ultimately the message is the destruction of evil and the restoration of all things.

Anyway I honor your vision of creation and new creation. It speaks to the longing for order, rest, and new life.

But I must warn you: the individual soul does not permit the destruction of opposites.

Darkness cannot be burned away.

If you seek to destroy it, you will project it onto your neighbor, and then fight him as though he were evil incarnate.

 

[Hentenza]

2 Corinthians 5:21 – “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

God acted for our sake. That means God acted out of His love, to make it possible to remove the separation between us and Him which is our sin. To accomplish this, God made Christ, who had never sinned during His life on earth in any way, to become our sin. Jesus' death, then, paid the price for our sin, removing our guilt and removing the obstacle between us and God.

 

[Colo Millz]

The Hebrew word for "evil" (ra') in this context means calamity, disaster, or trouble, not moral evil or sin. The verse emphasizes that God is not the author of moral evil but is in ultimate control of all events, including those that seem bad, to bring about His purposes and to judge or discipline those who rebel against Him.

I find the distinction between evil and calamity by the Jewish rabbis to be - cute.

I don't accept it.

What comfort does that word game bring to the child screaming under torture or dying from diptheria? Do you think she cares whether her pain is “moral evil” or “calamity”?

You may dress the word in new garments, but the blood still cries out from the ground.

 

[Hentenza]

I find the distinction between evil and calamity by the Jewish rabbis to be - cute.

I don't accept it.

What comfort does that word game bring to the child screaming under torture? Do you think she cares whether her pain is “moral evil” or “calamity”?

You may dress the word in new garments, but the blood still cries out from the ground.

You don’t have to accept it. I’m not here to convince you of anything but I will warn you that judging an infinite being based on our puny finite understanding is a fools errant.

 

[Colo Millz]

You don’t have to accept it. I’m not here to convince you of anything but I will warn you that judging an infinite being based on our puny finite understanding is a fools errant.

And that, to be honest, may be the best we can do with this.

[O]ne is confronted with only this bare choice: either one embraces the mystery of created freedom and accepts that the union of free spiritual creatures with the God of love is a thing so wonderful that the power of creation to enslave itself to death must be permitted by God; or one judges that not even such rational freedom is worth the risk of a cosmic fall and the terrible injustice of the consequences that follow from it. But, then, since there can be no context in which such a judgment can be meaningfully made, no perspective from which a finite Euclidean mind can weigh eschatological glory in the balance against earthly suffering, the rejection of God on these grounds cannot really be a rational decision, but only a moral pathos.

And yet Ivan’s argument still cannot be set aside, for a number of reasons: because it is in fact a genuinely moral pathos to which it gives expression, which means that it is haunted by the declaration in Christ of God’s perfect goodness; and because it is precisely the finite Euclidean mind that is meant to be transfigured by God’s love and awakened to God’s mercy, and so the restlessness of the unquiet heart must not be treated as mere foolish unfaithfulness; and because, simply said, the suffering of children remains real and horrible and unjust, and it is obscene to seek to mitigate the scandal of such suffering by allowing hope to degenerate into banal confidence in “God’s great plan.”

David Bentley Hart: The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami?

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyway I wouldn't say any opposites are "balanced".

Yes, I know.

If there's too much Yin, there has to be some more Yang to offset it.

And if there's too much Yang, there has to be some more Yin to offset it.

Every bright sunshiny day needs a tornado, doesn't it?

They exist in a kind of dynamic tension.

Known as "balance," I take it?

Wouldn't "tension" occur of one wasn't properly offset by the other?

Are you familiar with science's once-belief in what they called "Malthusian catastrophes"?

You know? a calamity used by Mother Nature to keep the population in check?

If you identify only with “goodness,” you repress your capacity for aggression, selfishness, etc. which then controls you.

I don't though.

The Bible says there is none good -- not one.

We are all sinners by nature, in need of Jesus Christ and His righteousness applied to our lives upon request.

To learn, it requires that I acknowledge and integrate my capacity for evil —

Garbage in, garbage out.

... not to erase goodness, but to create wholeness.

That's not the way to create "wholeness."

I suspect though, you mean "balance."

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you make of the hard passages quoted above which indicate that God is responsible for evil, or at least, calamity?

God creates what we call "necessary evils" for our benefit.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you seek to destroy it, you will project it onto your neighbor, and then fight him as though he were evil incarnate.

Serious question:

Have you ever joined forces with others across the country and mentally concentrated on approaching tornadoes to dissipate them?

 

[Hentenza]

And that, to be honest, may be the best we can do with this.

[O]ne is confronted with only this bare choice: either one embraces the mystery of created freedom and accepts that the union of free spiritual creatures with the God of love is a thing so wonderful that the power of creation to enslave itself to death must be permitted by God; or one judges that not even such rational freedom is worth the risk of a cosmic fall and the terrible injustice of the consequences that follow from it. But, then, since there can be no context in which such a judgment can be meaningfully made, no perspective from which a finite Euclidean mind can weigh eschatological glory in the balance against earthly suffering, the rejection of God on these grounds cannot really be a rational decision, but only a moral pathos.

And yet Ivan’s argument still cannot be set aside, for a number of reasons: because it is in fact a genuinely moral pathos to which it gives expression, which means that it is haunted by the declaration in Christ of God’s perfect goodness; and because it is precisely the finite Euclidean mind that is meant to be transfigured by God’s love and awakened to God’s mercy, and so the restlessness of the unquiet heart must not be treated as mere foolish unfaithfulness; and because, simply said, the suffering of children remains real and horrible and unjust, and it is obscene to seek to mitigate the scandal of such suffering by allowing hope to degenerate into banal confidence in “God’s great plan.”

David Bentley Hart: The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami?

Not really. See in exegesis and contextual text studies the hermeneutical circle must be taken into consideration. No verse is an island and all have a context. In the context of this passage (and the message of the prophets of the Old Testament in general) is about blessing those who are faithful and punishing those who disobey (see Isa. 45:9, 24). It’s within this principle that God declares that he creates “well-being” and “calamity.” He’s responsible for bringing prosperity to those who are faithful and calamity to those who rebel. That’s even consistent with his treatment of his own people, Israel. He rewards them when they obey and punishes them (e.g., slavery, exile, etc.) when they disobey. In that sense, yes, it is God who creates calamity.

 

[Colo Millz]

The Bible says there is none good -- not one.

We are all sinners by nature, in need of Jesus Christ and His righteousness applied to our lives upon request.

We were not originally “sinners by nature,” but good, very good, and are now unfinished by nature.

And I cannot agree that man is only a sinner, totally depraved.

He is divided — part light, part darkness — and his task is not to erase one half but to become conscious of both.

To say ‘none is good’ is true, for no man is whole without transforming and integrating his dark side.

But neither is he only evil.

He is incomplete.

The person of Christ calls him to become whole.

That is salvation: not the covering over of man’s nature with Christ’s perfection, but the awakening of Christ in the depths of the soul.

 

[Colo Millz]

Serious question:

Have you ever joined forces with others across the country and mentally concentrated on approaching tornadoes to dissipate them?

Um, well, no.

I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

 

[Colo Millz]

... He’s responsible for bringing prosperity to those who are faithful and calamity to those who rebel. That’s even consistent with his treatment of his own people, Israel. He rewards them when they obey and punishes them (e.g., slavery, exile, etc.) when they disobey. In that sense, yes, it is God who creates calamity.

So those who endure "calamity" deserve it?

Like the child dying of diptheria?

 

[AV1611VET]

What comfort does that word game bring to the child screaming under torture or dying from diptheria? Do you think she cares whether her pain is “moral evil” or “calamity”?

What though is this screaming child offsetting?

A child on the other side of the world having perfect health?

You may dress the word in new garments, but the blood still cries out from the ground.

Are you implying the Holocaust was a necessary evil that balanced out something good?

 

[AV1611VET]

That is salvation: not the covering over of man’s nature with Christ’s perfection, but the awakening of Christ in the depths of the soul.

Are you into Kundalini?

 

[AV1611VET]

Um, well, no.

I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

If, as you said, I can project evil on to my neighbor, can I project good onto a town about to get hit by a tornado?

 

[AV1611VET]

So those who endure "calamity" deserve it?

Like the child dying of diptheria?

I wouldn't say "deserves it."

But I would say, according to Y/Y philosophy, it is necessary.

Wouldn't you?

 

[Hentenza]

So those who endure "calamity" deserve it?

Like the child dying of diptheria?

I see that you only copied part of my post in essence removing the context. Your appeal to emotion fallacy is what guides your questions. I’m not sure if you are here to learn or just argue. If the second then count me out.

 

[Colo Millz]

Are you implying the Holocaust was a necessary evil that balanced out something good?

Those that would say so are those that would theodicize it.

The same kind of person who would go to the child dying of diptheria and begin lecturing her about "God's Great Plan".

Whereas I would say that the Holocaust is the perfect example of projection.

After WWI, Germany was humiliated, disoriented, and hungry for renewal. Instead of confronting its own darkness — its rage, inferiority, and need for scapegoats — the culture projected that darkness onto the Jews, who were made into the symbolic carriers of evil.

That’s projection at a massive scale: what a nation cannot face in itself, it seeks to destroy in others.

 

[Colo Millz]

I wouldn't say "deserves it."

But I would say, according to Y/Y philosophy, it is necessary.

Wouldn't you?

I would certainly not say morally necessary.

But I would say, factual.

It is a fact.

And as such, evil is “necessary” to acknowledge as a reality of the world, but not as a moral good.

Its “necessity” is therefore not "hopeful" in the biblical sense, but tragic.

 

[Colo Millz]

Are you into Kundalini?

No, I'm not sure I believe in that kind of thing.