This is one of the most important discussions that will be had coming out of all of this...
Sharper Minds Daily...
Posted on 12/31/2004 4:29:45 AM PST by jalisco555
Compassion is the best response when humanity faces the problem of evil, writes Edward Spence.
"Why did you do this to us, God? What did we do to upset you?" asked a woman in India this week, a heart-wrenching question asked in common these past few days by Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Christians. Nothing could have prepared us for what happened when the tsunami unleashed its terror. So we seek answers where answers are hard to come by, in either secular or sacred realms.
Traditionally, the Judeo-Christian God, considered the most supreme and perfect being in the universe, has been ascribed the following necessary attributes: omniscience (all-knowing), omnipresence (present everywhere at all times and at once), omnipotence (almighty and powerful) and benevolence (all good and caring).
How, then, did a God as powerful and benevolent as this allow such a thing to happen? If he is benevolent then he cannot also be omnipotent, for a God who has both these attributes would have wanted to, cared to and been able to prevent such a catastrophe.
Perhaps, though omnipotent, He is not benevolent. That might explain why, although it was within His power to stop the tsunami, He simply chose not to: God has His own reasons and we are not to ask why. However, this answer will not suffice since by definition God is perfect. Being perfect, He must of necessity not merely be omnipotent but benevolent as well.
A possible solution to this problem, traditionally known as the problem of evil, was offered by the heretical Manicheans, who believed not in one supreme being but two: one good God responsible for all the good things in life and another bad God, Satan, responsible for all the evil in the world.
St Augustine, a follower in his early 20s, became an ardent critic of this doctrine, thinking a weak God powerless to defeat Satan was not worth worshipping.
Philosophically, if God is perfect, then there can be only one perfect God, not two. In any case, evil is an imperfection and thus not a characteristic that can be attributed to God.
If the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune are at play and the deaths caused by the tsunami are a cosmic payback in the form of karma, does that offer a solution, albeit a philosophical one, to the problem of evil? I think not. For how can children, some as young as a few months, who had not yet lived their lives, deserve to be punished so cruelly for their past sins - especially when they have not been offered the promised divine opportunity to atone for those sins through another life?
Even if solutions are forthcoming to these philosophical conundrums, humanely speaking they make little sense. Perhaps that is why some people remain sceptical about the presence of any divine providence ruling over us.
A compromise solution, between secular scepticism and a psychological need for the sacred, was offered by the Greek philosopher Epicurus. Although believing in gods, he claimed these divine beings would not want to diminish their heavenly happiness by mingling in the sordid affairs of mortals. For Epicurus, the gods were not crazy but simply indifferent to both human joys and sorrows. When it comes to social or natural evils, we are all alone.
But if natural disasters are merely random events caused by the uncaring and blind forces of nature, does this offer us any comfort or meaning in the face of the apocalyptic events on Boxing Day?
Even if our heads offer us such solutions, our hearts refuse to follow. For the problem of evil is an existential problem that confronts our own individual mortality and vulnerability to unknown and unexpected disasters.
Ultimately, heartfelt tears shed in earnest and with compassion, with offerings of charity for those who have suffered, are more meaningful than any theological and philosophical treatise on the problem of evil. Especially at Christmas when, according to the gospels, love is the single core message.
Perhaps this is the essence, if the legend is true, of what God learnt from us when He walked and suffered as a man among us. Ultimately, the problem of evil confronts us not as a puzzle to be solved but as a mystery to be experienced. And as Jesus and Plato before him indicated, the meaning of the mystery of life can be found only by experiencing another great mystery - the mystery of love.
Dr Edward Spence is a philosopher at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University.
No flames, please. Like many believers the theodicy issue (why bad things happen to good people) has long troubled me.
Your arms are too short to box with God.
This neglects to mention one of God's most important attributes. He is holy.
Of course God loves us. Why else would he send his son to this world to die a cruel death to pay the penalty for our sins. He loves us so much that he made a way for us to escape Hell. It is man who does not love God and rejects his gift of eternal life, arrogantly believing there is something good in us that will allow us to save ourselves.
Undeniably true.
Judaism's answer rejects dualism. God creates both good and evil, both light and darkness. As the Prophet Isaiah proclaimed, "I, the Lord, create all these things." Both are divine qualities and neither can exist without the other. Both nature and the humanity is one being in which both light and darkness exist. There's a wonderful beauty to both beyond compare but their dark side shows that life as it is lived is not all peacefulness and sweetness. There is violence and suffering. And they way forward is to make sure they never overwhelm each other. We ought to marvel not at how imperfect and sinful the world is but how much it embodies goodness and beauty. God helps us to find our way past the trials of this life to appreciate the way it can make us laugh and smile.
Thanks for the recommendation. I've read quite a bit on this topic here and there but still am not satisfied. I probably will just have to live with my ignorance and lack of understanding.
Anyone who knows his bible is not surprised by the destruction, just releived he himself did not get hit, and perhaps sad for those lost. God never promised goodwill and peace on THIS earth.
None of us will ever be. I am not satisfied that my mother and a close friend were taken from me. Yet they inspire me to be calm and happy and take solace in the true judgment of the Lord. I know He wants me to be happy. I will never stop questioning Him but I will always love Him.
The problem is how man defines "benevolence". God is benevolent, but also just and seeks to discipline His children. We may not understand the reasons "why" this happened, because we are limited in our comprehension of His will.
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus asked him. "No one is good except God alone. (Mar 10:18)
Receiving Yourself in the Fires of Sorrow
. . . what shall I say? ’Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour. ’Father, glorify Your name’
—John 12:27-28
As a saint of God, my attitude toward sorrow and difficulty should not be to ask that they be prevented, but to ask that God protect me so that I may remain what He created me to be, in spite of all my fires of sorrow. Our Lord received Himself, accepting His position and realizing His purpose, in the midst of the fire of sorrow. He was saved not from the hour, but out of the hour.
We say that there ought to be no sorrow, but there is sorrow, and we have to accept and receive ourselves in its fires. If we try to evade sorrow, refusing to deal with it, we are foolish. Sorrow is one of the biggest facts in life, and there is no use in saying it should not be. Sin, sorrow, and suffering are, and it is not for us to say that God has made a mistake in allowing them.
Sorrow removes a great deal of a person’s shallowness, but it does not always make that person better. Suffering either gives me to myself or it destroys me. You cannot find or receive yourself through success, because you lose your head over pride. And you cannot receive yourself through the monotony of your daily life, because you give in to complaining. The only way to find yourself is in the fires of sorrow. Why it should be this way is immaterial. The fact is that it is true in the Scriptures and in human experience. You can always recognize who has been through the fires of sorrow and received himself, and you know that you can go to him in your moment of trouble and find that he has plenty of time for you. But if a person has not been through the fires of sorrow, he is apt to be contemptuous, having no respect or time for you, only turning you away. If you will receive yourself in the fires of sorrow, God will make you nourishment for other people.
Suppose there is a God, suppose there are rules, suppose all 'punishment' were proportionate. Where would there be 'free will'? Would you have any choice but to believe in that God and follow his rules exactly? What would you be but a slave? Would a perfect God create slaves?
BTW, who said these natural disasters were punishment? Is death or suffering a 'punishment'?
But some say that if God were perfect, his creation would be perfect, and there would be no death or suffering. Who are those who say that? Did they create the world? Who are they to judge what is perfect?
First, there are no good people. Paul writes in Romans, "All have fallen short of the glory of God." Paul also writes than any good deed he does is like "filthy rags". We are all fallen and in need of redemption.
I take issue with the use of the word "benevolence" in the description of God from the article. While I agree that God is perfectly good, to me, the word "benevolence" excludes the concept of a perfectly just God. You will note that "Perfectly Just" is not included in the list of attributes in the article. Liberal theologians do not like to talk about God's justice because then they must acknowledge God's wrath, which doesn't fit the kindly, old Grandfather model of God they present.. I would note that "Perfectly Merciful" is also excluded from the author's list.
I am not implying that this disaster is an act of God's righteous judgement because I don't know. What we do know is that death entered the world through man's choice to rebel against God. While God allowed sin and death to enter the world, He is not the first cause. Sin and death are the consequences of Adam and Eve's free choice of disobedience..
I believe that God is sovereign. Therefore, I must conclude that God either allowed or commanded this event. I have no idea why he did because I am not Him. However, I do trust him.
Jesus never promised a rose garden. In fact, he said the opposite. He told his desciples that "if they persecuted me, they wiil persecute you as well." It seems to me that such a teaching would not fit into the author's definition of the word "benevolence".
My view is this. Sin is serious business. God takes it much more seriously than our culture. Also, I believe God's perspective is eternal. Contrast that to our perspective that is often carnal and focused on temporary things. Finally, in our secular culture, this life is all we have. Clearly, someone who has their eyes on eternity would look at this tragedy differently than someone who saw death as the end.
I don't claim to have all the answers. These are just some of my thoughts on this subject.
Also look at the vast amount of human kindness and generosity that has been brought out by the disaster. I don't know why it happened - heck, I don't even know why a car driven by a drunk driver was allowed to take the life of a wonderful, promising 20 year old girl from my choir - but the only thing we can control is our own reaction. And perhaps in later years, the survivors on those islands will look back and recall how many people came to their aid, and this will increase the goodness in the world, and God will be made more present among us.
"If we could understand God, we would be God."
A fundamental characteristic of conscious humans is that man seeks to understand nature and in turn gains increasing control of nature. History documents an upward curve of man advancing his understanding of nature and increasing control of nature. The only meaningful-measurable pause in the curve occurred during the Dark Ages.
Speculating that conscious beings -- the third macro element of existence; mater and energy the other two -- with several magnitude more advanced technologies living in other universes routinely design and create new universes. Also, that conscious beings applying greatly advanced technology in our Universe may be creating universes by design and controlling our Universe on a macro level to ensure that a "big crunch" implosion cycle never happens.
Analogous in part to Earthlings curing death billions of years before relocating to another solar system to avoid the Sun burning out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.