The Absence Theodicy

[NotBlinded]

Now wasn't that fun! (Sorry, they wouldn't let you take a keg on the plane).

Almost as good as going there... you are forgiven! Except you realize they would make me cut those off before I boarded a plane? I think they might view them as lethal stabbing weapons, wouldn't you? Then I would have to put in for a name change to "Stumps".

 

BTW, that guy doesn't look very much like me. This is my real face:

 

 

I don't believe it for a second!

 

Anyway if that was the case, I think your name would be "Hornyman"

[NotBlinded]

LOL!

 

-CC

[Antlerman]

God can be what God wants to be, but I prefer that God not be omnipresent. I want my privacy. I don't want a god or God or an angel or a spirit or anyone else with me in the bathroom. Period. Who wants a spirit present in the privacy of one's bathroom or bedroom? Or when one is picking one's nose. I don't. So I am more comfortable with a God who is there, yes, but not always really there. I think these human words are hard to use in quantifying omnipresence.

 

In terms of God being all good. Well, I do embrace this view. But this does not mean that God should stomp out every evil. We'd be dropping like flies. Very scarey time that would be. Unfortunately, evil will have to be with us while we're in this boat together.

 

-CC

You know CC, I really hate to say this but for some reason as I read this I kept coming to this view: you are describing man's best friend here, which would be a dog, or God spelled backwards. What can I say? I respect you, but this is what kept hitting me. I know it sounds terrible, doesn't it? But no one like Dog to watch them on the can but they love having him there to assure them they are loved. The ever present, unconditional loving pet. Barky the Lord.

[Legion]

But no one like Dog to watch them on the can but they love having him there to assure them they are loved. The ever present, unconditional loving pet. Barky the Lord.

Ah look here CC. I do believe that Antlerman is making fun of your imaginary, excuse me, invisible friend.

 

It's okay Antlerman. Barky forgives you and loves you despite your unbelief.

[Antlerman]

But no one like Dog to watch them on the can but they love having him there to assure them they are loved. The ever present, unconditional loving pet. Barky the Lord.

Ah look here CC. I do believe that Antlerman is making fun of your imaginary, excuse me, invisible friend.

 

It's okay Antlerman. Barky forgives you and loves you despite your unbelief.

Well I'm not exactly meaning to sound mocking, but it honestly struck me in a way that described the role that a faithful pet fulfills. I've never thought about it like that before and felt I wanted to remark on it.

 

We want God there when we need a loving friend, who will always admire us, be happy to see us, lick our hand, bring us our slippers, etc. Except with God you don't need to take him for walks or feed him special-formula Jesus Chow to make sure his teeth stay healthy and strong. However, depending on what dog owner's club you belong to, he could cost you up 10 percent of your gross income, plus periodic love offerings to various kennel associations.

 

The blessings of Barky be upon you. May his coat ever shine and bring you joy.

[AKR]

Heya,

 

So I was wondering how you all deal with this common explanation that Christians use to explain the presence of evil in the world... "dark is the absence of light, cold is the absence of heat, evil is the absence of God". It just seems really weak to me, and doesn't sit right, but I can't put my finger on WHY. I was hoping you all could help me work through this so I can more eloquently respond to this the next time a Christian throws this at me when I tell them that I don't believe a good and just God could let stuff like genocide and rape happen so frequently down here on his apparently beloved planet.

 

so, yeah... little help? i'm still such a newbie at this unbeliever thing.

 

 

i agree with what someone else said, about good/evil being human concepts. i would also ask why god is limited, in that he NEEDS opposites. and why does he not need these opposites in heaven. if they are not needed in heaven, then why on earth? why do we need dark, or evil in one place, but not the another?

 

i really hate how some christians say that we'd be robots if we couldn't choose to do evil. yet, they fail to see that we would end up being robots in heaven, using their reasoning.

 

this is seriously flawed reasoning.

[currentchristian]

God can be what God wants to be, but I prefer that God not be omnipresent. I want my privacy. I don't want a god or God or an angel or a spirit or anyone else with me in the bathroom. Period. Who wants a spirit present in the privacy of one's bathroom or bedroom? Or when one is picking one's nose. I don't. So I am more comfortable with a God who is there, yes, but not always really there. I think these human words are hard to use in quantifying omnipresence.

 

In terms of God being all good. Well, I do embrace this view. But this does not mean that God should stomp out every evil. We'd be dropping like flies. Very scarey time that would be. Unfortunately, evil will have to be with us while we're in this boat together.

 

-CC

You know CC, I really hate to say this but for some reason as I read this I kept coming to this view: you are describing man's best friend here, which would be a dog, or God spelled backwards. What can I say? I respect you, but this is what kept hitting me. I know it sounds terrible, doesn't it? But no one like Dog to watch them on the can but they love having him there to assure them they are loved. The ever present, unconditional loving pet. Barky the Lord.

 

Interesting take on it. I don't like my kitty with me in the bathroom, either, and her little bathroom box is in my bathtub, so poor little thing sometimes has to compete with me for use of the space! She'll throw herself on the floor outside the bathroom and stick her paws beneath the door trying with all her might to open it. So, of course, I let her in, against my better judgment. Still, I stand by my desire to be left absolutely alone in the bathroom! I know I'm being silly as there's nothing God has not "seen."

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

But no one like Dog to watch them on the can but they love having him there to assure them they are loved. The ever present, unconditional loving pet. Barky the Lord.

Ah look here CC. I do believe that Antlerman is making fun of your imaginary, excuse me, invisible friend.

 

It's okay Antlerman. Barky forgives you and loves you despite your unbelief.

 

Well, coming from Antlerman, I can take it!

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Well I'm not exactly meaning to sound mocking, but it honestly struck me in a way that described the role that a faithful pet fulfills. I've never thought about it like that before and felt I wanted to remark on it.

 

We want God there when we need a loving friend, who will always admire us, be happy to see us, lick our hand, bring us our slippers, etc. Except with God you don't need to take him for walks or feed him special-formula Jesus Chow to make sure his teeth stay healthy and strong. However, depending on what dog owner's club you belong to, he could cost you up 10 percent of your gross income, plus periodic love offerings to various kennel associations.

 

The blessings of Barky be upon you. May his coat ever shine and bring you joy.

 

You are right that we want a love-and-happy-and-all-will-be-okay God. We want the same thing from our (earthly) friends and our spouses and so on. Human nature, I guess. I have been taken to God's woodshed more than once, however, and it didn't feel good at all at the time, but after the fact I appreciated the stern once-over.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

i agree with what someone else said, about good/evil being human concepts. i would also ask why god is limited, in that he NEEDS opposites. and why does he not need these opposites in heaven. if they are not needed in heaven, then why on earth? why do we need dark, or evil in one place, but not the another?

 

i really hate how some christians say that we'd be robots if we couldn't choose to do evil. yet, they fail to see that we would end up being robots in heaven, using their reasoning.

 

this is seriously flawed reasoning.

 

It does appear to be flawed reasoning, save for this point. Those who inhabit God's realm (and I hope that is all of us!) in the world to come will do so because they want to be part of that realm. Their will is to choose only goodness. In removing the inclination to wrongdoing, their true will (their inclination to goodness) is allowed full sway in their beings. It's a deliverance, a salvation. The paradox of desiring to do good while doing ill and seeking to avoid doing ill only to do just that will be eliminated. Here below we war with our incilinations to do good and to do ill. Those whose will it is to do only good will in the world to come be granted that great privilege, ultimate redemption.

 

Not trying to convince anyone of this point, just responding to AKR's fine point that, in my view, had another side to it.

 

-CC

[AKR]

It does appear to be flawed reasoning, save for this point. Those who inhabit God's realm (and I hope that is all of us!) in the world to come will do so because they want to be part of that realm. Their will is to choose only goodness. In removing the inclination to wrongdoing, their true will (their inclination to goodness) is allowed full sway in their beings. It's a deliverance, a salvation. The paradox of desiring to do good while doing ill and seeking to avoid doing ill only to do just that will be eliminated. Here below we war with our incilinations to do good and to do ill. Those whose will it is to do only good will in the world to come be granted that great privilege, ultimate redemption.

 

Not trying to convince anyone of this point, just responding to AKR's fine point that, in my view, had another side to it.

 

-CC

 

ok, let's assume for a minute that people's "inclination to wrongdoing" is actually satan, and not mere instincts. let's assume that the desire to have sex with more than one partner isn't our biological drive to create more offspring, and that this cannot be manipulated through things like drugs, brain surgery, or anything like that, since it is dependent on satan. let's assume that lying isn't a survival mechinism, brought about by evolution. or that homosexuality (i see your ears perk up ) doesn't have it's societal benefits, that's also found in other animals.

 

now, assuming that there really is a devil, urging us to do "wrong," your post still fails to answer why there must be a devil in the first place. why does god NEED a devil? and why does he only need him in one realm, but not another?

 

reading over your post again, i think what you are saying is that there are people in this world who only want to do good, and in heaven, god removes that outside force, causing them to want to do evil. and therefore, they are not robots because they always wanted to do just good.

 

right? here's the problem. who created them with the desire to do good in the first place? or the desire to do evil? people cannot choose whether or not they are inclined to do good or evil. i don't desire to do positive things because i simply made myself desire these things. no one WANTS to go to hell and suffer for all of eternity, so why would anyone WANT to do something they know would cause them to go there?

 

another problem, who created the option of evil? why does god need evil? why does he need or make people that want to do evil?

 

and if satan is giving us that 'inclination to do wrong," how is that free will? if we really want to do good, but do wrong because of satan, that's not really us, now is it?

 

this still isn't making any sense to me. i find so many problems with this topic, it's hard to focus my thoughts.

[currentchristian]

ok, let's assume for a minute that people's "inclination to wrongdoing" is actually satan, and not mere instincts. let's assume that the desire to have sex with more than one partner isn't our biological drive to create more offspring, and that this cannot be manipulated through things like drugs, brain surgery, or anything like that, since it is dependent on satan. let's assume that lying isn't a survival mechinism, brought about by evolution. or that homosexuality (i see your ears perk up ) doesn't have it's societal benefits, that's also found in other animals.

 

now, assuming that there really is a devil, urging us to do "wrong," your post still fails to answer why there must be a devil in the first place. why does god NEED a devil? and why does he only need him in one realm, but not another?

 

reading over your post again, i think what you are saying is that there are people in this world who only want to do good, and in heaven, god removes that outside force, causing them to want to do evil. and therefore, they are not robots because they always wanted to do just good.

 

right? here's the problem. who created them with the desire to do good in the first place? or the desire to do evil? people cannot choose whether or not they are inclined to do good or evil. i don't desire to do positive things because i simply made myself desire these things. no one WANTS to go to hell and suffer for all of eternity, so why would anyone WANT to do something they know would cause them to go there?

 

another problem, who created the option of evil? why does god need evil? why does he need or make people that want to do evil?

 

and if satan is giving us that 'inclination to do wrong," how is that free will? if we really want to do good, but do wrong because of satan, that's not really us, now is it?

 

this still isn't making any sense to me. i find so many problems with this topic, it's hard to focus my thoughts.

 

God knows I don't have the answer to these fundamental questions, just my answer -- the one that makes sense to me.

 

It seems fairly well established, by mere observation, that we do have a very strong inclination to do good. We also have an inclination (less strong in some, equally strong in others and, sadly, more strong in others) to do not-good. (I won't use the word "evil" as it is so highly charged.)

 

These inclinations just are. It doesn't seem to me that God is the author of our inclination to do good, although in my theology God prefers that we do good, just as a parent would prefer that her/his children do good, help the little old lady across the street, give a buck to a kid without lunch money, etc. As God is not actively and directly the author of the impulse to do good, neither is the anti-god (commonly known as satan or the devil) the author of the impuse to do not-good.

 

Most of who we are is biological. There is a biological reason for polygamy. A female can have one baby a year; a male can sire 365 babies a year. The desire to have sexual partners outside one's marital/quasi-marital relationship is quite common. If we are not actually engaging in sexual relations outside our spousal commitment, we most definitely are doing so in our minds. (I did just this--strayed from my covenant of monogamy--last night in a dream! I admit it was an enjoyable dream, but would not be one my higher nature would choose to make reality.) Those who want absolute sexual fidelity, therefore, will "in heaven" (I don't really like that term...too religiousy) be free from the inclination to be adulterous.

 

Whatever that outside force is that compels one to harm another by word, thought or deed, or to fail to live up to our highest nature and our highest calling will be eliminated in God's realm -- whether that outside force is a satan figure or a biological impulse or a little of both.

 

-CC

[Antlerman]

It does appear to be flawed reasoning, save for this point. Those who inhabit God's realm (and I hope that is all of us!) in the world to come will do so because they want to be part of that realm. Their will is to choose only goodness. In removing the inclination to wrongdoing, their true will (their inclination to goodness) is allowed full sway in their beings. It's a deliverance, a salvation. The paradox of desiring to do good while doing ill and seeking to avoid doing ill only to do just that will be eliminated. Here below we war with our incilinations to do good and to do ill. Those whose will it is to do only good will in the world to come be granted that great privilege, ultimate redemption.

I'm going to challenge you on something here. I will submit to you that right now, here in this world everyone's will is to choose to good. There's that word again, "good". Everyone seeks to do something that is beneficial to them. But what may benefit one person may not benefit the other, or actually have a negative affect on them. But the intention is rarely to seek to harm the other person for the sake of harm itself. And then even so when it does, it is often viewed as seeking "right" or "good" by the one's doing it. War is a good example. Everyone seeks good for themselves, except for those aberrations who have mental illnesses and seek to harm themselves, which in some odd way may well be perceived by them as being beneficial to some need, or doing something "good". To our standards we disagree.

 

Here's the point: The Devil doesn't exist. The Devil is not a force of anything. Everyone seeks "good", but what the problem is lies with people's ability to find consensus on definitions of good. What you are talking about is a utopian society where everyone’s' definition of good are in agreement. This is a goal of societies everywhere since the dawn of civilization. Some answer it through secular dictatorships forcing everyone to agree, others through systems of democracy, and other's through religious dictatorships - like the promised theocratic dictatorship during the Millennial Reign of Christ on earth, and subsequent theocratic eternity.

 

Either we become transcendent non-humans who suddenly have a consensus with each other in heaven on our ideas of what is beneficial or "good", or we accept our humanity here and do the work that is necessary to achieve the highest degree of cooperation in our societies for the greatest mutual benefit. Heaven is a promise of having "God take care of it for us", rather than us needing to keep doing the work. It's a dream of a vacation on some shore in the Bahamas, that we hang on the wall as a reminder of a belief that "we can have this". But does hoping for heaven really translate into anything beneficial here?

 

I’m going to run with this for a minute if you don’t mind? Suppose that “good” becomes shifted around to have “others” as the object of actions, rather than “self” which is the natural human position. So now we’re in this utopian society called God’s Heaven, where everyone is endless thinking of the other, putting their needs first. What does this look like? How does this society function?

 

Let’s start with something simple. Let’s say we’re trying to get on the escalator that goes up from cloud nine to the throne of God to go and perform our daily worship. “You first,” I politely say to my heavenly co-citizen. “No, please you first,” he responds with a mindful, thoughtful heart. Next person is there and we all start thinking of each other’s needs first until there is a traffic jam of 14,000,000,000 worshipers all thinking of each other, trying to get on the escalator to God, and poor God is sitting up there all alone without getting his daily praise offerings.

 

Ok that sound’s silly. But it points out a problem. No two person’s needs are the same. When you try to please everyone’s needs first, you again wind up with conflict. It can’t function. I can imagine a war over the best way to make other’s happy. “No our solution is the right way to feed the poor! If you do it that way they won’t get helped!” Or another way, “No let’s do it your way to help them” and they respond the same way and nothing happens because their can be no consensus if making “others” first is the way to get rid of “evil” that comes from putting our own “good” ahead of others.

 

No, heaven is balance. Balance that comes from a human desire to live in a healthy and mutually beneficial society, which is only achieved through people working together though finding consensus which cannot ever please everyone 100 percent, because no two people are the same and their needs all vary. To have 100 percent, we no longer are human. To desire to no longer be human is a desire to be dead. Being alive is desiring life, not desiring to be dead. Life is not evil.

[Skankboy]

No, heaven is balance. Balance that comes from a human desire to live in a healthy and mutually beneficial society, which is only achieved through people working together though finding consensus which cannot ever please everyone 100 percent, because no two people are the same and their needs all vary. To have 100 percent, we no longer are human. To desire to no longer be human is a desire to be dead. Being alive is desiring life, not desiring to be dead. Life is not evil.

If you can't make everyone happy, make everyone equally miserable..

 

Seriously though, this whole thread pins on 2 concepts I don't believe truly exist: good and evil. Both are really only a point of view, and like Antlerman pointed out, often times what's "good" for one, is "evil" for another.

 

[currentchristian]

I'm going to challenge you on something here. I will submit to you that right now, here in this world everyone's will is to choose to good. There's that word again, "good". Everyone seeks to do something that is beneficial to them. But what may benefit one person may not benefit the other, or actually have a negative affect on them. But the intention is rarely to seek to harm the other person for the sake of harm itself. And then even so when it does, it is often viewed as seeking "right" or "good" by the one's doing it. War is a good example. Everyone seeks good for themselves, except for those aberrations who have mental illnesses and seek to harm themselves, which in some odd way may well be perceived by them as being beneficial to some need, or doing something "good". To our standards we disagree.

 

Here's the point: The Devil doesn't exist. The Devil is not a force of anything. Everyone seeks "good", but what the problem is lies with people's ability to find consensus on definitions of good. What you are talking about is a utopian society where everyone’s' definition of good are in agreement. This is a goal of societies everywhere since the dawn of civilization. Some answer it through secular dictatorships forcing everyone to agree, others through systems of democracy, and other's through religious dictatorships - like the promised theocratic dictatorship during the Millennial Reign of Christ on earth, and subsequent theocratic eternity.

 

Either we become transcendent non-humans who suddenly have a consensus with each other in heaven on our ideas of what is beneficial or "good", or we accept our humanity here and do the work that is necessary to achieve the highest degree of cooperation in our societies for the greatest mutual benefit. Heaven is a promise of having "God take care of it for us", rather than us needing to keep doing the work. It's a dream of a vacation on some shore in the Bahamas, that we hang on the wall as a reminder of a belief that "we can have this". But does hoping for heaven really translate into anything beneficial here?

 

I’m going to run with this for a minute if you don’t mind? Suppose that “good” becomes shifted around to have “others” as the object of actions, rather than “self” which is the natural human position. So now we’re in this utopian society called God’s Heaven, where everyone is endless thinking of the other, putting their needs first. What does this look like? How does this society function?

 

Let’s start with something simple. Let’s say we’re trying to get on the escalator that goes up from cloud nine to the throne of God to go and perform our daily worship. “You first,” I politely say to my heavenly co-citizen. “No, please you first,” he responds with a mindful, thoughtful heart. Next person is there and we all start thinking of each other’s needs first until there is a traffic jam of 14,000,000,000 worshipers all thinking of each other, trying to get on the escalator to God, and poor God is sitting up there all alone without getting his daily praise offerings.

 

Ok that sound’s silly. But it points out a problem. No two person’s needs are the same. When you try to please everyone’s needs first, you again wind up with conflict. It can’t function. I can imagine a war over the best way to make other’s happy. “No our solution is the right way to feed the poor! If you do it that way they won’t get helped!” Or another way, “No let’s do it your way to help them” and they respond the same way and nothing happens because their can be no consensus if making “others” first is the way to get rid of “evil” that comes from putting our own “good” ahead of others.

 

No, heaven is balance. Balance that comes from a human desire to live in a healthy and mutually beneficial society, which is only achieved through people working together though finding consensus which cannot ever please everyone 100 percent, because no two people are the same and their needs all vary. To have 100 percent, we no longer are human. To desire to no longer be human is a desire to be dead. Being alive is desiring life, not desiring to be dead. Life is not evil.

 

Everyone's will in this world is to do something beneficial for themselves. As I write, I am dipping harvest grain bread into olive oil with a dash of Italian seasoning and garlic -- for one reason only: It feels good to do so. All action is first and foremost judged by its value for the person engaging in the action. That's not to say that these choices are bad. Going to college is "selfish," saving money is "selfish," losing weight is "selfish." Not bad. And a degree of "selfishness" is necessary for self-preservation. But selfish acts are not "good," either; they just are, neutral. Most of what we do all day is neither good nor bad, but neutral. Everyone's will is to do what is beneficial to themselves and everyone's will, therefore, is to do that which is neutral. Even if we don't recognize this.

 

Very few consistenly have a will to do good or to do not-good. We all will to do good or to do not-good from time to time, but few of us will do good or not-good most of the time.

 

We are indeed unable to define "good." What is is? To me, good is doing for the benefit of others even when doing so will not benefit oneself. Few of us do that. Well, let me speak for myself and say I rarely do that. My work with "the underpriviled" and inmates could be deemed "good" if I did not receive pay for it. I do this work because I am paid for it. I would not do it if I were not paid for it. So my work is not "good" and certainly is not "not-good." It is "neutral." Quid pro quo. I'll do a "good" thing for society if society will pay me back. I will not be rewarded (in the theological sense of that concepot) for this work; I have my reward -- a paycheck. It could be argued that it is "good" that I chose to make my money in a way that is beneficial, directly beneficial, to others. But that's beside the point.

 

For now, we have no other choice than to find some common ground regarding what is "good" and work toward that good. But we can't even seem to do that. While most of us have agreed that murder is not-good, some insist on acting contrary to that view. Most of us agree that war is not-good, even when -- as in the case of WWII -- the goal of the war was to rid the world of an even greater not-good (i.e., Nazism and fascist Japan). Still, many do not uphold the doctrine of peace until all options have been employed and war only when there is no other option and the not-good is worse than the not-good of war.

 

The hope of a transformation (i.e., "heavenly" life) should not give one an "I'm not doing anything about this not-good" pass because God will take care of things. That's a cop-out. Still, I do believe that ultimately and finally, it will take the an outside hand to bring justice and order and peace and goodness.

 

-CC

[NotBlinded]

You know, it's really funny sometimes that one just happens to run accross something that relates to something elso so perfectly.

 

This is what I discovered on refdesk today under their quote of the day:

 

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only." - Charles Dickens

 

Amazing how that happens sometimes.

[currentchristian]

You know, it's really funny sometimes that one just happens to run accross something that relates to something elso so perfectly.

 

This is what I discovered on refdesk today under their quote of the day:

 

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only." - Charles Dickens

 

Amazing how that happens sometimes.

 

By dickens, Dickens had it right!

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

AKR and Antlerman: A few posts back we were discussing the theoretical inclination to do good and the theoretical inclination to do not-good. This morning in reading a ca. 374 C.E. letter to Theodosius from Jerome (Latin Vulgate Jerome), I came across what might exemplify what I was attempting to say regarding the theory I have that in "heaven" our true inclination -- that of doing good -- will be fulfilled when we no longer struggle against that which we don't want anyway -- the inclination to do not-good.

 

At the time of this letter, Jerome was in his mid-30's and undecided about his future course. (He could not have known that some 25 years later he would create what would be the common biblical text of the RCC for the next 1500 years!)

 

In this letter, he writes regarding his desire to live an upstanding life and join the desert brothers:

 

"I spoke of this when I was with you, and now in writing to you I repeat anew the same request: for all the energy of my mind is devoted to this one object. It rests with you to give effect to my resolve. I have the will but not the power; this last can only come in answer to your prayers. For my part, I am like a sick sheep astray from the flock....I am the prodigal son....not yet have I commenced to put away from me the allurements of my former excesses. And because it is only a little while since I have begun not so much to abandon my vices as to desire to abandon them...I find myself in mid-oceain, unwilling to retreat and unable to advance."

 

This reminds me of Augustine's prayer: "Lord, give me chastity, but not yet."

 

Listing of Jerome's letters is here with links to each one.

 

-CC

[Antlerman]

AKR and Antlerman: A few posts back we were discussing the theoretical inclination to do good and the theoretical inclination to do not-good. This morning in reading a ca. 374 C.E. letter to Theodosius from Jerome (Latin Vulgate Jerome), I came across what might exemplify what I was attempting to say regarding the theory I have that in "heaven" our true inclination -- that of doing good -- will be fulfilled when we no longer struggle against that which we don't want anyway -- the inclination to do not-good.

Ok, this is going to become an involved topic. Other's have also remarked that "Good" is the natural propensity of life, that even though some anthropomorphic representation of God as in the Bible may not be a reality, that the "essence" of the universe if "goodness", and that we all have a leaning to it. I don't know that I can agree with that, even though I value what we call "good" and pursue it in my life.

 

The problem I have with the Christian view of the world is this dichotomy of "good and evil". The words of Paul echoed by Jerome, "That which I would do, I do not. And that which I would not do, that thing I do! Oh wretched man that I am...! (etc)." Again, I think this "anxiety" that Paul and Jerome express is CREATED by theology! To me becoming "saved" is no longer being assailed by the guilt falsely laid upon you for completely natural, and even healthy points of view and actions. When I look at some of what is said by the Jesus character in the Gospels, I hear this sentiment of breaking away from religion, to being true to yourself in your own personal pursuit of doing what you know (without theology) is the "right" thing to do. Being saved to me, means being saved from religion!

 

I have to ask, in your life how much anxiety, guilt, and imposed torment did you go through in your youth telling you what "good" and "bad" meant? I suspect it was a long and difficult struggle for you to move from hating who you were, to accepting and loving yourself. To me "sincerity" is what "living for God" should mean. Christianity teaches a long list of "thou shalt nots" and condemns all humans as "bad". Then they sell the cure! Yes, its a marketing scheme to create a dependent customer base, much like the tobacco industry.

 

If God loved and accepted us without needing us to first hate who we are and then buy the cure from the local minister (religion salesman), then what control over man would that give to the priesthood? I continually come back to human relationships in this comparison (since we are talking about a God created in our own image after all), that if my partner had to come to the place where she admitted she was a wretched, unworthy soul, and that without me she was nothing, she was dirt with no other reason than me to live.... what value is that to me? I benefit from someone who loves me who doesn't NEED to.

 

It's of much, much, much more value to me to have someone who loves themselves and doesn't need me - choose to love me because I mean something to them!!! And what's more than that, because they love themselves, their own love of themselves and life becomes meaningful to me as it becomes added into my own ife. If I were to love (not worship) a God, it would be because I saw that he/she/it had something I desired to have in my life, not because I needed them to be saved.

 

This is not what Christianity teaches about God. Christianty teaches we are but filthy menstrual rags in the eyes of God, and He needs to cover our ugliness with the blood of his Son in order to even look at us. Nice head-job there! Does this sound healthy to you? Not to me.

[Antlerman]

*bump* No response?

[chefranden]

If this is true and if God exists and if God is omnipresent then there can be no evil.

 

There is evil, therefore God cannot be omnipresent.

 

Since Christian God is defined as omnipresent, it cannot exist.

 

This thought need some work, but this theodicy is a counter productive apologetic.

Well chef, I am going to have to defer to Antlerman's post towards the top of this page with this quote of his. Why? Because I am too chicken to question you myself!

 

Everything is "good", and everything is "evil". Nothing is good and nothing is evil. It's much simpler to just say everything "is", and leave the absolutist, black and white value words out of it. Genocide is "bad", because it violates our ideals we choose for the benefits we derive from them. But it's good to those who want that other race of people to be gone from existence. We create God, and fashion him to our image. Depending who is in power, "God" is either good or bad. The majority prefer a "good" God, because it benefits them. Whereas the few and greedy prefer a god that looks evil to the majority, but that ideal of "good" is what serves them. Yep... not a black and white world, is it?

 

Although he is an atheist and I'm not in the strictest sense, I agree with this understanding about what is being perceived as good and evil although I think there is something that causes us to feel good when we help others, but then that also begs the question, was what we did really good for whom we did it for?

 

I don't see God as being everywhere, I see God as being everything. The life essence of it all, which would make it being everywhere only as a necessity (I don't know if I said that right) with a perceived separation. (I could be totally crazy too!)

 

Love you Chef!

 

Sometimes I loose track of threads I've commented on.

 

Your idea of god is not what is self refuted by the absence theodicy. I also agree with the man's assessment of good and evil. I can't define evil but I know it when I see it, and I always know that I see it from my own angle not from an absolute angle.

 

By the way, from a Zen point of view, saying everything is god is the same as saying nothing is god.

 

Thanks for your love.

[NotBlinded]

By the way, from a Zen point of view, saying everything is god is the same as saying nothing is god.

 

I can like that, but to me anyway, there is something more profound in saying everything is god. Of course, it makes no difference in reality, only in thought.

 

Thanks for your love.

You're very welcome!

[chad]

SarahGrace,

 

I have not read the multitude of responses to your initial post, so please forgive me if any of what follows is a repeat of what someone else may have already articulated.

 

Before I attempt to offer a recommended response to this peculiar definition of evil, I'll place it within what I consider to be its larger context. Arguably the most devastating critique of the Christian God (viz. a deity that is all-good and all-powerful) is the problem of evil. And since most ex-Christians are very familiar with it, I'll briefly review:

1) If god is all-good and all-powerful, then god possess both the will and power to eliminate all evil.

2) Evil clearly exists

Therefore, either god is not all-good or all-powerful, or god is neither. So the Christian god does not exist.

 

Notice that construing evil as merely the privation of good is an attempt to provide a solution to the problem that evil foists onto the existence of a theistic god by challenging premise two. After all, to the extent that an absence or lack of good denotes a passive type of evil that is contrary to an active type of evil which seeks to oppose and reverse the good, the existence of real, positive evil would be rendered dubious. I used a couple philosophical terms in that last sentence that may need a bit of clarification. Passive evil (or negative evil) is simply another way of saying the lack or absence of good. Active evil (or positive evil) is simply another way of saying the actual presence of evil that proactively counteracts the good. So, such a solution is ultimately reducible to the contention that active evil is an illusion--that active evil doesn't genuinely exist; in that, the age-old dichotomy between good and evil is replaced by a mere continuum of good or by differing degrees of good. Some parts of reality are more good and some parts are less good, but all parts possess nothing but good insofar as they owe their ultimate origin to God. Therefore, active or positive evil – that which is the dualistic opposite of good – is cancelled out, because all that exists is good to one degree or another. If this orthodox, active concept of evil is non-existent, then a god who is endowed with both omnibenevolence and omnipotence is not contradictory, and the problem of evil is therefore solved. Right? WRONG! Three problems arise based on this solution: a theological problem, a empirical problem, and a phenomenological problem.

 

THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM

 

The Bible explicitly and obviously sets forth the existence of active evil (I’m sure I don’t have to quote a litany of Bible versus that corroborate as such to a bunch of ex-Christian). Consequently, a passive definition of evil outright contradicts biblical doctrine.

Even if the Bible didn’t explicitly set forth the concept of active evil (as I’m sure some clever apologists will try to argue), the concept of evil as the privation of good inherently contradicts the nature of God as set forth in Biblical doctrine. God is depicted as perfect in every conceivable way. Consequently, his Creation must be perfect in every conceivable way. But a created world or reality that is deprived of good or deprived of perfection in certain respects is evidently a imperfect Creation. And an imperfect Creation contradicts the perfect nature of the biblical God. Hence, the Christian God must not exist if certain aspects of Creation or the world are characterized by a privation of the good which is to say a privation of perfection.

 

EMPIRICAL PROBLEM

 

Any Joe Shmoe can readily observe and immediately verify the existence of active evil by simply observing the world around him. Watch one evening of the national news, take one visit to your local prison, hang-out with your local drug dealers for one night, check-out show of “Predator” on National Geographic, and the list goes on and on (fill in the blank). Hence, an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence directly contradicts a passive/privation definition of evil.

 

PHENOMENOLOGICAL PROBLEM

 

Fundamentally, phenomenology pertains to the subjective experience of reality; that is, it contends that the only reality or Truth humans have access to or may genuinely know is the subjective reality of personal perception. Hence, reality or Truth constitutes the subjective experience of the world’s phenomena. Note that phenomenology does not reduce reality/Truth to individualistic relativism, because it takes the additional step of making reality contingent upon the collective similarities of human experience (e.g. most people experience the world as exterior to the self and as existing independently of the mind). Herein lies the problem of construing evil as the privation of good: before any abstract, theoretical notions of evil, everyone, without exception, directly experiences the existence of active evil. That is to say, one would be hard pressed to find a person who experiences the brutality of rape, theft, a natural disaster that kills thousands, terrorism, animals eating their own offspring, Hitler, and child molestation as the mere privation of good. Thus, if the existence of bonafide, active evil is rendered impossible by the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, then why did this God cognitively program humanity to experience the existence of bonafide, active evil? Seems like a terribly cruel joke.

 

Although my critique of evil as the privation of good is by no means exhaustive, I’m confident that it will give any interested ex-Christian a foundation from which he/she can cogently challenge any apologetical attempt to eliminate the problem of evil. So lets briefly review, and in so doing, outline a basic strategy of response to any Christian who defines evil as the privation of good in an effort to present it as a solution to the problem of evil:

 

First, direct the Christian's attention to the fact that his definition of evil engenders at least two theological problems that he/she must reconcile:

1) Biblical doctrine explicitly states the existence of active evil and thereby contradicts a passive definition of such.

2) The concept of passive evil intrinsically contradicts the perfect nature of God.

 

Second, direct the Christian’s attention to the fact that his definition of evil engenders an empirical problem that he/she must reconcile: repeatable observations of the world clearly reveal the existence of active evil.

 

Third, direct the Christian’s attention to the fact that his definition of evil engenders a phenomenological problem that he/she must reconcile: if bonafide, active evil does not really exist, then why is the human psyche innately constituted to subjectively experience aspects of the world/reality as actively evil?

 

Unless Christians are able to solve the above problems, a passive/privation definition of evil must be deemed nonsensical.