Why Does God Allow Evil? - Email from a Skeptic

The ESSAY portion of the fore-linked post has been answered in advance, as shown below by a well oft repeated story over the web,....(I actually have a copy of the original in my office, but found this one on a web, which seems to have lost it's source)

This Is the Title of This Story, Which Is Also Found Several Times in the Story Itself

This is the first sentence of this story. This is the second sentence. This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the story itself. This sentence is questioning the intrinsic value of the first two sentences. This sentence is to inform you, in case you haven't already realized it, that this is a self-referential story, that is, a story containing sentences that refer to their own structure and function. This is a sentence that provides an ending to the first paragraph.

This is the first sentence of a new paragraph in a
self-referential story. This sentence is introducing you to the protagonist of the story, a young boy named Billy. This sentence is telling you that Billy is blond and blue-eyed and American and twelve years old and strangling his mother. This sentence comments on the awkward nature of the self referential narrative form while recognizing the strange and playful detachment it affords the writer. As if illustrating the point made by the last sentence, this sentence reminds us, with no trace of facetiousness, that children are a precious gift from God and that the world is a better place when graced by the unique joys and delights they bring to it.

This sentence describes Billy's mother's bulging eyes and protruding tongue and makes reference to the unpleasant choking and gagging noises she's making. This sentence makes the observation that these are uncertain and difficult times, and that relationships, even seemingly deep-rooted and permanent ones, do have a tendency to break down.

Introduces, in this paragraph, the device of sentence
fragments. A sentence fragment. Another. Good device. Will be used more later.

This is actually the last sentence of the story but has been placed here by mistake. This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the story itself. As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself in his bed transformed into a gigantic insect. This sentence informs you that the preceding sentence is from another story entirely (a much better one, it must be noted) and has no place at all in this particular narrative. Despite claims of the preceding sentence, this sentence feels compelled to inform you that the story you are reading is in actuality "The Metamorphosis" by Franz Kafka, and that the sentence referred to by the preceding sentence is the only sentence which does indeed belong in this story. This sentence overrides the preceding sentence by informing the reader (poor, confused wretch) that this piece of literature is actually the Declaration of Independence, but that the author, in a show of extreme negligence (if not malicious sabotage), has so far failed to include even one single sentence from that stirring document, although he has condescended to use a small sentence fragment, namely, "When in the course of human events", embedded in quotation marks near the end of a sentence. Showing a keen awareness of the boredom and downright hostility of the average reader with regard to the pointless conceptual games indulged in by the preceding sentences, this sentence returns us at last to the scenario of the story by asking the question, "Why is Billy strangling his mother?" This sentence attempts to shed some light on the question posed by the preceding sentence but fails. This sentence, however, succeeds, in that it suggests a possible incestuous relationship between Billy and his mother and alludes to the concomitant Freudian complications any astute reader will immediately envision. Incest. The unspeakable taboo. The universal prohibition. Incest. And notice the sentence fragments? Good literary device. Will be used more later.

This is the first sentence in a new paragraph. This is the
last sentence in a new paragraph.

This sentence can serve as either the beginning of the
paragraph or end, depending on its placement. This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the story itself. This sentence raises a serious objection to the entire class of self-referential sentences that merely comment on their own function or placement within the story e.g., the preceding four sentences), on the grounds that they are monotonously predictable, unforgivably self indulgent, and merely serve to distract the reader from the real subject of this story, which at this point seems to concern strangulation and incest and who knows what other delightful topics. The purpose of this sentence is to point out that the preceding sentence, while not itself a member of the class of self-referential sentences it objects to, nevertheless also serves merely to distract the reader from the real subject of this story, which actually concerns Gregor Samsa's inexplicable transformation into a gigantic insect (despite the vociferous counterclaims of other well meaning although misinformed sentences). This sentence can serve as either the beginning of the paragraph or end, depending on its placement.

This is the title of this story, which is also found several
times in the story itself. This is almost the title of the
story, which is found only once in the story itself. This
sentence regretfully states that up to this point the
self-referential mode of narrative has had a paralyzing effect on the actual progress of the story itself -that is, these sentences have been so concerned with analyzing themselves and their role in the story that they have failed by and large to perform their function as communicators of events and ideas that one hopes
coalesce into a plot, character development, etc. -- in short, the very raisons d'etre of any respectable, hardworking sentence in the midst of a piece of compelling prose fiction. This sentence in addition points out the obvious analogy between the plight of these agonizingly self-aware sentences and similarly afflicted human beings, and it points out the analogous paralyzing effects wrought by excessive and tortured self-examination.

The purpose of this sentence (which can also serve as a
paragraph) is to speculate that if the Declaration of
Independence had been worded and structured as lackadaisically and incoherently as this story has been so far, there's no telling what kind of warped libertine society we'd be living in now or to what depths of decadence the inhabitants of this country might have sunk, even to the point of deranged and debased writers constructing irritatingly cumbersome and needlessly prolix sentences that sometimes possess the questionable if not downright undesirable quality of referring to themselves and they sometimes even become run-on sentences or exhibit other signs of inexcusably sloppy grammar like unneeded superfluous redundancies that almost certainly would have insidious effects on the lifestyle and morals of our impressionable youth, leading them to commit incest or even murder and maybe that's why Billy is strangling his mother, because of sentences just like this one , which have no discernible goals or perspicuous purpose and just end up anywhere, even in mid

Bizarre. A sentence fragment. Another fragment. Twelve years old. This is a sentence that. Fragmented. And strangling his mother. Sorry, sorry. Bizarre. This. More fragments. This is it. Fragments. The title of this story, which. Blond. Sorry, sorry. Fragment after fragment. Harder. This is a sentence that. Fragments. Damn good device.

The purpose of this sentence is threefold: (1) to apologize for the unfortunate and inexplicable lapse exhibited by the preceding paragraph; (2) to assure you, the reader, that it will not happen again; and (3) to reiterate the point that these are uncertain and difficult times and that aspects of language, even seemingly stable and deeply rooted ones such as syntax and meaning, do break down. This sentence adds nothing substantial to the sentiments of the preceding sentence but merely provides a concluding sentence to this paragraph, which otherwise might not have one.

This sentence, in a sudden and courageous burst of altruism, tries to abandon the self-referential mode but fails. This sentence tries again, but the attempt is doomed from the start.

This sentence, in a last-ditch attempt to infuse some iota of story line into this paralyzed prose piece, quickly alludes to Billy's frantic cover-up attempts, followed by a lyrical, touching, and beautifully written passage wherein Billy is reconciled with his father (thus resolving the subliminal Freudian conflicts obvious to any astute reader) and a final exciting police chase scene during which Billy is accidentally shot and killed by a panicky rookie policeman who is coincidentally named Billy. This sentence, although basically in complete sympathy with the laudable efforts of the preceding action-packed sentence, reminds the reader that such allusions to a story that doesn't, in fact, yet exist are no substitute for the real thing and therefore will not get the author (indolent goof-off that he is) off the proverbial hook.

Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph.
Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph.
Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph.

The purpose. Of this paragraph. Is to apologize. For its
gratuitous use. Of. Sentence fragments. Sorry.

The purpose of this sentence is to apologize for the pointless and silly adolescent games indulged in by the preceding two paragraphs, and to express regret on the part of us, the more mature sentences, that the entire tone of this story is such that it can't seem to communicate a simple, albeit sordid, scenario.

This sentence wishes to apologize for all the needless
apologies found in this story (this one included), which, although placed here ostensibly for the benefit of the more vexed readers, merely delay in a maddeningly recursive way the continuation of the by-now nearly forgotten story line.

This sentence is bursting at the punctuation marks with news of the dire import of self-reference as applied to sentences, a practice that could prove to be a veritable Pandora's box of potential havoc, for if a sentence can refer or allude to itself, why not a lowly subordinate clause, perhaps this very clause? Or this sentence fragment? Or three words? Two words? One?

Perhaps it is appropriate that this sentence gently and with no trace of condescension reminds us that these are indeed difficult and uncertain times and that in general people just aren't nice enough to each other, and perhaps we, whether sentient human beings or sentient sentences, should just try harder. I mean, there is such a thing as free will, there has to be, and this sentence is proof of it! Neither this sentence nor you, the reader, is completely helpless in the face of all the pitiless forces at work in the universe. We should stand our ground, face facts, take Mother Nature by the throat and just try harder. By the throat. Harder. Harder, harder.

Sorry.

This is the title of this story, which is also found several
times in the story itself.

This is the last sentence of the story. This is the last
sentence of the story. This is the last sentence of the story. This is.

Sorry.

Found the source for the above: Article 2447 of talk.bizarre: >From: drseuss@UCSCF.UCSC.EDU (The Cat in the Hat) Subject: The subject of this subject is the subject of this subject. Summary: Silliness ensues...(and WINS - film at 11) Keywords: The subject of these keywords are keywords... Message-ID: <8704171337.AA21450@ucscf.UCSC.EDU> Date: 17 Apr 87 13:37:05 GMT Reply-To: drseuss%ucscf.UCSC.EDU@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (David Bedno) Organization: Paradox, Inc. (Making the world safe for our eventual takeover) A story by David Moser...

Huh? I can't make any sense of the post you're replying to. He's knocking knowledge? Does he know for a fact that knowing facts are bad?

Knowledge knocking is very modern, very Charismatic, and very un-Biblical (all the verses you cited, John 17:3, and a kazillion others).

Dan
Biblical Christianity web site

What a beautiful post, man of Yosemite! Thank you!

Pilate asked the question "what is truth?" while the answer was directly before him. Well said.

Thank you so much for your post!

Farewell natural theology?

I am no theologian, nor am I a philosopher - and whereas I may gather information from many sources, I cannot seek Truth by either side of the coin based on this definition:

Natural Theology

"Natural Theology" is the favorite term in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries designating the knowledge of God drawn from nature in distinction from the knowledge of God contained in revelation. This division of theology into natural and revealed had its roots in the scholastic distinction between the two truths, one derived from nature by the use of the Aristotelian logic, subject to the authority of the Church, the other, truth above reason, revealed by God but formulated and taught solely by authority of the Church.

My problem with the above definition of revealed theology is the provision ”revealed by God but formulated and taught solely by authority of the Church”. I surrender only to Jesus and thus am of the mind of Martin Luther (emphasis mine):

Martin Luther’s Life: The Imperial Diet of Worms

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."

Whether my beliefs are acceptable to any man or to any group of men does not matter to me. My life goal is to love Him absolutely and my fellow man unconditionally, therefore having surrendered to Jesus, only the Word is Truth to me. IOW, knowing God must be predicated on love:

Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near [me] with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, [even] a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise [men] shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent [men] shall be hid. – Isaiah 29:13-14

My testimony, FWIW...

" very Charismatic"

Without a doubt. Bondserv is a nice guy but such an unqualified claim gives the antagonists reassurance.

This division of theology into natural and revealed had its roots in the scholastic distinction between the two truths, one derived from nature by the use of the Aristotelian logic, subject to the authority of the Church, the other, truth above reason, revealed by God but formulated and taught solely by authority of the Church.

I have the same problem you have with this definition of Natural Theology, A-G; for it splits reason and revelation in a way that seems analogous to Cartesian dualism, which splits matter and spirit, body and soul.

Natural reason is a "medieval misconception," based on a "doctrinaire distinction" between reason and "supernatural revelation." This has resulted in a series of consequent "deformations," as Eric Voegelin points out in his article, "Widsom and the Magic of the Extreme":

"The medieval misconception of classic philosophy as an enterprise to find the truth of reality by 'natural reason'; the doctrinaire distinction between 'natural reason' and 'supernatural revelation' as the sources of truth; the consequent development of the distinction into the two truth enterprises of 'theology' on the one side, and of 'metaphysics,' 'ontology,' and 'critical philosophy' on the other side; the hardening of these doctrinal issues into the popular opposition of 'religion' and 'science'; the doctrinal subconflicts among 'theologies' since the sixteenth century and among their successor doctrines, the 'ideologies,' since the eighteenth century [e.g., Marxism and other "isms"] -- all this doctrinal abundance and conflict fuurther aggravated and complicated by the growth of, and interaction with, the Gnostic-satanic movements [e.g., the rise of Hitler], has piled such mountains of incidental debate on the problems of vision and noesis that incisive reflections of the form Plato has given to it have become rare among modern thinkers."

God is One, Truth is one; and Plato's incisive reflection of the problems of vision and noesis took the form of a direct, immediate divine-human participation. And the 'site' and 'sensorium' of the participation was the soul, psyche, consciousness itself, in what Plato described as the "In-Between" of the metaxy. One does not need a priest to instruct us in what is true where the human-divine participation -- the divine drawing and human response -- is experienced as already fully alive in one's being.

Therefore, I do agree that Martin Luther was justified by a type of profound humility, by the direct subjection of himself to God's Truth, in the passages you quote from him. He recognized the responsibility for witnessing to Truth is ineluctibly and irreducibly personal, not something that can passively be left to authoritative institutions.

The question of Church authority may lie at the root of the split of natural reason and supernatural revelation. Yet it seems to me that the entire "two-culture war" of the present age is rooted in this "medieval misconception."

the pursuit of knowledge, and finally of wisdom, as a human act of responsive love of God.

Well said. We can't help it. Its how we're made.

Thanks for the ping, BB. Unfortunately, my responses to your earlier ping caused some discomfort to a couple of people here. So I'll stay away.

You probably get tired of my saying “oh what a wonderful essay” … but, Jeepers, I can’t help it. Oh what a wonderful essay, betty boop!

Yet it seems to me that the entire "two-culture war" of the present age is rooted in this "medieval misconception."

Indeed, I can see that now. Amazing. Further, it occurs to me that hostility between science and religion must torment most painfully those who have not yet experienced the Word. In particular, it is shameful to lay this torment at the feet of children who are most likely to be so situated. And the political implications are profound…

God is One, Truth is one; and Plato's incisive reflection of the problems of vision and noesis took the form of a direct, immediate divine-human participation. And the 'site' and 'sensorium' of the participation was the soul, psyche, consciousness itself, in what Plato described as the "In-Between" of the metaxy. One does not need a priest to instruct us in what is true where the human-divine participation -- the divine drawing and human response -- is experienced as already fully alive in one's being.

So very true. Clearly, God rewards those who diligently seek Him!

Your posts always get my mind in high gear so, as usual, I was off reading a ton of background information (thus the delay in my reply.) One path I was following involved Justin Martyr who had taken the position in his First Apology that Plato had been influenced by Moses and that he had unwittingly introduced the doctrine of the Cross.

I’ve read those passages several times, but my interest turned to Justin Martyr himself, why he was interested in Plato - and what I discovered was a rather fascinating personal testimony about philosophy and Plato in his dialogue with Trypho. The text is quite long, but some of his remarks I think are particularly relevant to this discussion (formatting mine):

"I will tell you," said I, "what seems to me; for philosophy is, in fact, the greatest possession, and most honourable before God,(1) to whom it leads us and alone commends us; and these are truly holy men who have bestowed attention on philosophy. What philosophy is, however, and the reason why it has been sent down to men, have escaped the observation of most; for there would be neither Platonists, nor Stoics, nor Peripatetics, nor Theoretics,(2) nor Pythagoreans, this knowledge being one.(3) I wish to tell you why it has become many-headed.

It has happened that those who first handled it [i.e., philosophy], and who were therefore esteemed illustrious men, were succeeded by those who made no investigations concerning truth, but only admired the perseverance and self-discipline of the former, as well as the novelty of the doctrines; and each thought that to be true which he learned from his teacher: then, moreover, those latter persons handed down to their successors such things, and others similar to them; and this system was called by the name of him who was styled the father of the doctrine.

Being at first desirous of personally conversing with one of these men, I surrendered myself to a certain Stoic; and having spent a considerable time with him, when I had not acquired any further knowledge of God (for he did not know himself, and said such instruction was unnecessary), I left him and betook myself to another, who was called a Peripatetic, and as he fancied, shrewd. And this man, after having entertained me for the first few days, requested me to settle the fee, in order that our intercourse might not be unprofitable. Him, too, for this reason I abandoned, believing him to be no philosopher at all.

But when my soul was eagerly desirous to hear the peculiar and choice philosophy, I came to a Pythagorean, very celebrated--a man who thought much of his own wisdom. And then, when I had an interview with him, willing to become his hearer and disciple, he said, 'What then? Are you acquainted with music, astronomy, and geometry? Do you expect to perceive any of those things which conduce to a happy life, if you have not been first informed on those points which wean the soul from sensible objects, and render it fitted for objects which appertain to the mind, so that it can contemplate that which is honourable in its essence and that which is good in its essence?' Having commended many of these branches of learning, and telling me that they were necessary, he dismissed me when I confessed to him my ignorance. Accordingly I took it rather impatiently, as was to be expected when I failed in my hope, the more so because I deemed the man had some knowledge; but reflecting again on the space of time during which I would have to linger over those branches of learning, I was not able to endure longer procrastination.

In my helpless condition it occurred to me to have a meeting with the Platonists, for their fame was great. I thereupon spent as much of my time as possible with one who had lately settled in our city,(4)--a sagacious man, holding a high position among the Platonists,--and I progressed, and made the greatest improvements daily. And the perception of immaterial things quite overpowered me, and the contemplation of ideas furnished my mind with wings,(5) so that in a little while I supposed that I had become wise; and such was my stupidity, I expected forthwith to look upon God, for this is the end of Plato's philosophy.

The dialogue continues as Justin Martyr describes his conversion. He then said:

"When he had spoken these and many other things, which there is no time for mentioning at present, he went away, bidding me attend to them; and I have not seen him since. But straightway a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets, and of those men who are friends of Christ, possessed me; and whilst revolving his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable. Thus, and for this reason, I am a philosopher.

Moreover, I would wish that all, making a resolution similar to my own, do not keep themselves away from the words of the Saviour. For they possess a terrible power in themselves, and are sufficient to inspire those who turn aside from the path of rectitude with awe; while the sweetest rest is afforded those who make a diligent practice of them. If, then, you have any concern for yourself, and if you are eagerly looking for salvation, and if you believe in God, you may--since you are not indifferent to the matter.(1)--become acquainted with the Christ of God, and, after being initiated,(2) live a happy life."

When I had said this, my beloved friends(3) those who were with Trypho laughed; but he, smiling, says, "I approve of your other remarks, and admire the eagerness with which you study divine things; but it were better for you still to abide in the philosophy of Plato, or of some other man, cultivating endurance, self-control, and moderation, rather than be deceived by false words, and follow the opinions of men of no reputation. For if you remain in that mode of philosophy, and live blamelessly, a hope of a better destiny were left to you; but when you have forsaken God, and reposed confidence in man, what safety still awaits you? If, then, you are willing to listen to me (for I have already considered you a friend), first be circumcised, then observe what ordinances have been enacted with respect to the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written in the law: and then perhaps you shall obtain mercy from God. But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

"I excuse and forgive you, my friend," I said. "For you know not what you say, but have been persuaded by teachers who do not understand the Scriptures; and you speak, like a diviner whatever comes into your mind. But if you are willing to listen to an account of Him, how we have not been deceived, and shall not cease to confess Him,--although men's reproaches be heaped upon us, although the most terrible tyrant compel us to deny Him,--I shall prove to you as you stand here that we have not believed empty fables, or words without any foundation but words filled with the Spirit of God, and big with power, and flourishing with grace."

And he continues…

The entire dialogue fascinated me in how Justin Martyr's heartfelt search for God found traction in Platonism ("the divine drawing and human response") and then lead to his conversion in Christ.

Well said Dataman.

Worshiping knowledge is the bane of human nature.

The lure of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil played a big part in the mess we are in today. If Adam and Eve had relied on the knowledge that God provided to them, things may have been different.

As the Jews added to the Laws God provided to them, and Jesus rebuked them repeatedly for adding to the information God provided, it is prudent to seek God in our pursuits of knowledge. Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all of these things will be added unto you.

Peter 1:3
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

Knowledge of the One who made physics, life, language, thought, inspires us to the creative thought He would have us pursue.

Yes, the answer I was looking for is Job 28:28:

And unto man he said, Behold, the fear (awe) of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil, is understanding

In fact, Alamo Girl, these are the two pillars the Lord likes to call Abraham and Sarah, in a little more esoteric way. Thanks for your replies, Mark of human feet

No one was discomfitured and personally I think you should stay, you might learn something. Class, of course, can't be learned, but maybe you pick up some Greek or maybe even a clue

LOL. Ask II, I know nothing. The sandals are magic

In fact, Alamo Girl, these are the two pillars the Lord likes to call Abraham and Sarah, in a little more esoteric way

And so, Markofhumanfeet, you are alleging that Alamo-Girl does not understand such things?

Methinks you are quite mistaken about that.

The entire dialogue fascinated me in how Justin Martyr's heartfelt search for God found traction in Platonism ("the divine drawing and human response") and then lead to his conversion in Christ.

A-G, it seems to me Plato got as far as it was humanly possible to go, given purely human resources, yet managed to at least somewhat specify the nature of the divine -- to which he so seemingly, personally, intimately responded.

All this before Christ came. And none of which conflicted with or contradicted Christ's coming. Or was designed in any way, shape, or form to obviate the need for the renovation of divine-human relations that the Incarnation was designed to resolve and effect.

Perhaps Justin Martyr in this case was merely resonating to truths made manifest in Plato, also seeing that there was no internal contradiction between Plato's vision and the vision of Jesus made manifest in the Crucifixion and its "beyond."

or succintly put, "I am!"

The concept of "the alpha and the omega" is truly humbling and supremely awe-inspiring.

Judas saw Jesus heal; and then he stole money. He saw Jesus feed 1000's and then he stole money. He saw this again and again, and he continued to steal.

I humbly apologize, but I seem to have forgotten the Bible's mentionings of Judas' repeated thefts. Can you point me in the passages(even vaguely close)? Freepmail me or post. You now have me curious. FMOKM

John 12: 3 (5) Mary then took a pound of very costly (6) perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But (7) Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said, 5 "Why was this perfume not sold for [1] three hundred denarii and given to poor people?" 6 Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he (8) had the money box, he used to pilfer (9) what was put into it.

"He used to pilfer what was put into it."

A continuous action in the past.

Thanks, xzins.

I'll go reference it right now.

ps-what translation are you using?