Posted on 02/10/2007 4:24:02 PM PST by NYer
No single factor is invoked more often in people turning away from God, or in their failing to believe in Him, than the occurrence --- note that I do not say "existence" --- of evil, especially as it manifests itself in suffering. The occurrence of evil appears incompatible with God, or at least a coherent conception of God as both (and simultaneously) absolutely good and absolutely powerful. That God and evil should coexist appears logically contradictory and ontologically inconsistent. The one is the abrogation of the other. The existence of God, it is argued, precludes the existence of evil and the existence of evil precludes the existence of God. While we can readily adduce empirical evidence, that is to say, tangible instances of evil to discredit the existence of God, the availability of evidence to corroborate the existence of God, on the other hand, is so exiguous that even when such instances are invoked they are deemed extraordinary events in the affairs of men, indeed, events so far from commonplace that we deem them miraculous, which is to say, inexplicable interventions conditionally attributed to God in the absence of explanations that may yet be forthcoming. Whether or not this is a sufficient, if concise, summary, the general implication is clear. The evidence of evil is far more overwhelming than the evidence of God. If preponderance is the criterion to which we appeal, God loses.
Evil comes as a scandal to the believer who asks, "How can this be, given the existence of God?"
To the disbeliever no such scandal arises, only scorn for the believer who is left in perplexity, unable to deny the existence of God on the one hand while equally unable to deny the occurrence of evil on the other.
How did we come to such a state of affairs? We appear to be consigned to either nihilistic resignation in the one camp, or an unreasoned and therefore untenable affirmation in the other --- so both are damned to perplexity.
Neither has satisfactorily answered the question implicit within every occurrence of evil: "Why?"
The sources and causes of disbelief are, of course, many, ranging from competing religious traditions with conflicting and contradictory conceptions of God, to the violence that has historically erupted between them, subsequently scandalizing the impulse of religion itself together with the notion of God --- at Whose behest, it is held, or at least in Whose name, atrocities distinctly religious in character were committed.
A more recent phenomenon to which we can appeal --- and with which we have become intimately acquainted --- is the rise of what we might call Militant Secularism. Secularism, however, is not the cause of disbelief as much as a response to it. But in this case we must in all honesty probe more deeply and ask why it is that secularism, this manifestation of disbelief, is making such deep inroads upon religion, especially the practice of religion.
Secularism, we must understand, is not a repudiation of the existence of God, but a programmatic dismissal of God (if such exists, and secularism neither affirms nor denies this existence) as legitimately pertaining to the public and even the private affairs of men. Secularism does not dispute the existence of God; it merely maintains Him to be either no longer relevant, or more troubling still, the very cause itself of much of the evil in the world as we increasingly witness ever escalating sectarian discord and violence in the name of religion, most notably --- and most violently --- in Islam. This phenomenon has caused us to re-examine our own religious antecedents in the history of Christianity.
It is important to understand, however, that in this process of reexamination a good deal of revisionism unquestionably occurs --- not unlike the sort practiced within erstwhile Communist societies which not so much politically sanitized history as programmatically distorted it to better accord with socialist ideals --- despite the exploitation of authenticity in the narrative. Entire histories were re-written, revised, expunged, and politically edited until an "acceptable" version emerged. We still see evidence of this in Communist China, no less than in the present drafting of the Constitution of the modern European Economic Union, both of which, albeit in different ways, attempt to expunge God in general and Christianity in particular from its historical antecedents. The result, of course, is not so much history as a disinterested chronicle of events, as it is an explication of events through the instrument of policy ...
Secularists have embarked on a similar venture, leafing through the annals of the history of Christianity with a careful eye to egregious defections from it (as every sin, every injustice, is not a manifestation of, but rather a defection from the teaching of Christ and the Church) emphasizing the abuses that occurred within the Church and the evils done by individuals and even nations spuriously invoking the name of the Church --- the Church which explicitly repudiates and vehemently denounces the political and social crimes committed in its name to the material ends of nations or the unbridled avarice of individuals. That there were clerics and even popes complicit with these enormities, is an indictment of the individual clerics, however many, but in no way an indictment of the Church from whose teachings and dogma they defected.
While eager to emphasize these defections from the Church, secular revisionists have been no less assiduous in programmatically expunging the inestimable good that Christianity has brought to the world --- and wrought within it. Pope Alexander VI, one of the Borgia Popes of the 15th century, notoriously corrupt, dissolute, and wicked by any standard is more likely to be invoked by secularists as an example of Catholic religious influence than Saint Francis of Assisi, together with, say, Tomás de Torquemada of the Spanish Inquisition rather than Mother Teresa of Calcutta. It is, in short, a carefully selective and meticulously culled history held to be paradigmatic of Catholicism and its overwhelmingly deleterious influence on the world. One of the more popular --- and perhaps prototypical --- examples cited is the lamented destruction of the native Aztec religion and culture by the Catholic Spanish conquistadors. That it was a religion and culture centered on human sacrifice upon a grand scale1 is, apparently, of no consequence to enlightened secularists --- and the Church which abolished this evil practice was guilty of a greater evil still, that of cultural imperialism, the supplanting of a native religion and culture centered on human sacrifice with a culture and religion centered on loving God and man. In reality, however, the secularist denounces both --- but on distinctly unequal terms: one for ritually exterminating life in the name of religion, the other for abolishing, in the name of religion, the culture that ritually exterminates life. That one is a religion of death and one a religion of life is immaterial. If the same glass can hold poison or water, break the glass ... and drink neither.
There is only one solution for the secularist: abolish God and you abolish both.
Such an approach is not without precedent. Marxism and Communism invoked the same solution to the problem of economic inequality. Belief in God and the exercise of religion were "the opiate of the masses" inasmuch as they inured man to his suffering rather than galvanizing the proletariat to revolt in a class conflict against the bourgeoisie. Inasmuch as God and religion were complicit in the suffering of the proletarian masses by proffering spiritual rewards in place of material
incentives, both must be abolished as impediments to the realization of the Socialist ideal.
Criminalize God and you exonerate man. Lay the root of evil (in this case, the suffering of the proletariat) at the foot of God, proceed to abolish God, and you abolish the root of the evil.
Such a programme failed to work for Communist secularists ... and it will fail to work for other militant secularists as well, and It will fail to work for the same reason: God is not the cause of evil.
Our original question asked why secularism is making such deep inroads upon religion --- and succeeding. It is, at least in large part, because we have failed to coherently articulate the genesis of evil. We know the narrative, but we have failed to grasp the ineluctable implications. As Saint Paul tells us, "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child."2 We have read, as from a primer, the account of the genesis of evil as though depicted in pastels that stir our imagination, the imagination of children --- and have failed to follow the sad but invincible logic inescapable within it. Let us, then, begin.
It's more Manicheanism than traditional Christianity.
You're repeating "higher critical" nonsense.
Chr*stians believe Satan is Lucifer, son of the morning, who rebelled against G-d and fell from Heaven.
Thought you might have some insight into this.
A creature IS NOT GOD. Your claim that Christianity is "dualistic", pitting a "good gxd" (whatever a 'gxd' might be) against an "evil gxd" is false.
Please cease and desist from bearing false witness.
P.S. to ZC, We do not know the specifics of why Lucifer refused to serve God, but theologians have speculated that the reason is that the angels were given a vision of the Incarnation. Lucifer in his pride as the highest angel created by God, could not fathom why God would incarnate Himself, become man, join Himself to lowly matter, and disgusted by this he refused to serve Jesus.
Michael, of a much lower order of angel was first to respond to Lucifer by saying, "who is like unto God?", and with the other obedient angels proceeded to cast Lucifer and his followers into hell.
The famous verse in Isaiah 'Eikh nafalta miShamayim, Helel Ben Shachar (from a triliteral root meaning "to shine") was addressed not to a rebellious angel but to the evil king of Babylon who was puffed up with pride and wore a splendid, shining garment. For this reason the prophet addressed him as "Helel Ben Shachar," the planet v*nus (the morning star).
The name of the angel who acts as the Satan is Sama'el (meaning, if I interpret correctly, something like "the left of G-d"). As the Yeitzer HaRa` (the evil inclination) he tries to destroy us with temptation. As Satan HaMashchit (the destroying adversary) he accuses us before G-d. As Mal'akh HaMavet (the Angel of Death) he is G-d's agent for killing us. I believe he is also the guardian angel of the nation of 'Edom, and as such wrestled with Jacob in Genesis 32.
Evil is not the result of a rebellion in the spiritual realms but because G-d brought something other than Himself into existence. This in and of itself made sin and evil possible. Satan merely does the job(s) he was assigned by G-d. There has never been an angel named "Lucifer" who rebelled against G-d at the beginning of time and became Satan. Sorry.
And to Arrogant Bustard, until the idea of G-d as the Creator had been absorbed by the nations of the world "gxds" were not necessarily considered creators.
PS: Qabbalah goes into greater detail about the origin of evil with such concepts as Shevirat HaKelim (the shattering of the vessels), but I am totally unqualified to say anything about that subject, so I limit my explanation to the peshat (the simple text).
You make God out to be the author of evil. I don't know why anyone would embrace that belief.
I disagree.
Abraham, the first Jew, was not a henotheist.
The Biblical account of Abraham describes a man who (1) entirely rejects the religious tradition of his nation (the Chaldaeans of Ur) and (2) worships a single deity who claims power over the entire earth and over all peoples.
The putative henotheist of 1800 BC was a man who believed in the same deity that his family had traditionally believed in and viewed that deity as being a deity whose authority was limited to his own people and whose authority was limited to one geographic area or area of expertise (say fish for a people consisting of fishermen, etc.)
Abraham made a radical break from that milieu. And, unlike henotheists, he refused to follow the ways of other deities or worship other deities when visiting or dwelling among the henotheists of the ancient Near East.
A better way to look at it would be to say that the deity of Biblical Judaism was henogenic - there were many people besides the descendants of Abraham, but God chose that specific people as his own.
Sort of the inverse of henotheism - the Bible portrays one God choosing one of many peoples, not a people choosing one of many gods.
Sermon on Angels by Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer
It's a fairly long sermon, but it provides an excellent explanation. The instruction on the angels begins about 3 1/2 minutes into the link.
The Problem of Evil: Exonerating God - Part I Prefacing the Problem
The Problem of Evil: Exonerating God -Part II -The Problem Summarized
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.