Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Stultis
In that sense, maybe I'm more of a creationist than you are. In my view you can't be a thorough-going creationist and theist if you only reserve little nicey-nice puppy dog and cuddley kitty type things for God to create. God is the God of majestic mountains majesty, amber fields of grain, AND of dysentery...

That almost wraps it up. A good summary of what was said and by whom. But it leaves out the motive for starting the discussion, which is the irony of the flagellum being the single best icon of ID, and at the same time characteristic mostly of disease causing organisms. It is one thing for creation to have sufficient freedom to enable the possibility of evil. It is quite another thing to have evil things in such abundance, existing independently of the guilt or innocence of the victims.

4,290 posted on 07/18/2003 8:09:06 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4285 | View Replies ]


To: js1138
It is one thing for creation to have sufficient freedom to enable the possibility of evil. It is quite another thing to have evil things in such abundance, existing independently of the guilt or innocence of the victims.

God gives being to each thing without stint or reservation. You can say "my puppy is good," and "that cougar ripping the living entrails out of my puppy is bad," but the cougar is too busy being a cougar to heed your commentary.

I'm inclined to believe the goodness of God is in the freedom with which he gives being to the world and the things in it (which being is not just a quality imparted, but is God's own being expressed in physical creation). I don't think He "controls" everything in a strict, mechanical sense. Instead God allows each thing to be fully itself. Even though it's being is entirely a gift from God, there are no strings attached. I suspect that God, in creation, is to some extent exploring the possibilities of physical being. If that experience is limited only to joy and pleasure, excluding pain and suffering, then God's self exploration is limited. God creates and sustains all things, and experiences all things.

I don't think, from within the web of the world, there is any telling what balance of joy and suffering, "good" and "bad," represents a "proper" balance. There may be many worlds that God has created (that exist as manifestations of physical being within God). It may be the case that in some of those worlds pleasure predominates, and in others pain does. Whether we are in one of the "better" ones or the "worse" ones there is no telling. In yet other worlds there may be no pleasure or pain at all, but only dances of particles or plasmas.

Now I'm not suggesting that God is amoral, I'm not even suggesting that God's morality is "beyond" our own in that it is of a completely alien kind. I suspect, for instance, that the "love" we feel and experience is at least in some sense "like" the love God feels. I believe God loves the world, but that does not mean the world must be absent of pain and privation, just as a parent can love a child that is horribly crippled, or even one with a twisted personality or character.

I also think that Gods wants the world to be the best world it can be, just as we wish for our own children to be the best people they can be, whatever their handicaps. I'm not preaching a fatalism that says we should accept evil and not try and mitigate or eliminate it. I believe very much the opposite. At the same time, though, I think we can become closer to God by loving the world in ALL it's aspects (even those we choose and strive to change) in the sense that we recognize them all as manifestations of God's freely given being.

4,305 posted on 07/19/2003 12:06:03 AM PDT by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4290 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson