|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Theodicy
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
From my experience, there are three real approaches to this problem:
The Job solution. In essence this says that God has the bigger picture, he is running the universe, and because he has that big picture, we cannot argue. What it means is that we are insignificant, because our suffering is part of the bigger plan. In fact, we see at the end he has twice the wealth, a whole lot of replacement family (because numbers of children are important, not the actual individuals), and the signs of Gods blessing seem to be the Health, Wealth and Happiness gospel.
Then there is the ConEvo approach, which is that suffering is part of our growth process, that God will bring something good out of it. This is the 1Cor 10:13 approach - "When you are tempted, God will provide a way out of it" which (taken literally) is crap, because sometimes Christians break. Sorry, suffering is not a good thing. Suffering sucks.
Then there is the Jurgen Moltmann approach, which says that God suffers with us, he is not distant from us, but he is there. So on twitter someone asked "where is God in Ferguson", to which the answer is "in the midst of it, being shot and tear gassed". Which is better than a distant, uncaring God, but sometimes, I want a God who is not just cuddling me, but Doing Something About It.
I know that these are brief summaries (and I have explored these in my book Ideocide, see my sig), but I am unsatisfied - I still don't find any of these gives me an answer to MY suffering NOW. I am largely in the Moltmann position these days, but it doesn't help. So where can I go now? Where does theodicy go beyond this?
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's up to US. He HAS to limit Himself to US.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
The three approaches are all part of the picture, from our point of view. They all lead us toward God, as does the struggling and dissatisfaction. God is both transcendent and immanent. God stands back and God is intimate with us. All at the same time.
We won't explain God, but in constantly seeking and calling out in prayer and thinking and experiencing, we will grow in faith and find that God has drawn nearer to us. Then we won't be so sure, as God will seem to be hidden again, and someone will harm us and we'll think we've been abandoned, and off we go again.
As long as we must think, make our own decisions and take responsibility for them, there must inevitably be negative consequences in the world that we all must live with.
Jesus showed us that suffering is part of the package, until God does come to intervene at the rapture, when the world as we know it will be no more.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
While I don't see the three proposed solutions as mutually exclusive, I tend to favour the Job idea. In this, Satan is a member of the heavenly court, and is only permitted to tempt Job within the parameters set by God Himself. If our lives on earth are a mere parenthesis in eternity, then we can't expect to understand God's ultimate purpose. The Jewish Scriptures are full of the idea of divine providence in all situations. This is also very much the theme of the Lord's Prayer, and is beautifully explained in the 18th century "Self Abandonment to Divine Providence" by Jean-Pierre De Causade.
As a universalist, I believe that God's ultimate purpose is the reconcilation of all creation to Himself in the unity of Love. As creation is immature, there may be much pain in that growth process, both collective and individual, because we must all say "Thy will be done."
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
My position is that I don't know. I now find this quite OK, although when I was younger, no doubt I would have tormented myself, with the thought that it wasn't good enough.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
One of the things that emerges from the Gospel of St John is not just that Jesus is in us but that we are in Him. In the context of suffering it means that there is always a part of us which is impassible. We may not be aware of it, we may not be able to access it in any conscious or emotional way but by faith we know that it is there. Simply being able to hold on to that existential truth and its allied truth that at some point this part of us will be fully known by us can be a source of strength when no other source is available.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Two other positions not mentioned above are process theology and open theology. I'll leave explaining the process position to others, but will attempt to outline briefly the open position:
Openness holds that God's highest priority and defining characteristic is love: he both loves and desires for us to love. But love must be freely chosen. So God freely chose to create a world that was free-- where God's free creatures (including but not limited to humans) are free to choose their actions. He didn't have to create a world like that, but chose to because of his desire that we could love and be loved. But freedom is always proportional: he degree to which we are free to choose good is also the degree that we are free to choose evil. So some creatures have great power and can use it either for good (Ghandi) or for evil (Hitler).
Much of the suffering humans experience is a result of these free choices-- not necessarily their own choices (although sometimes that), but more often the free choices of other humans that impact others.
When it comes to non-human caused suffering (e.g. disease, natural disasters, or death itself) Open Theologians differ in their explanations. The most well-thought out position is IMHO Greg Boyd's, who would continue the notion of proportional freedom beyond humans to Satan/demons vs. angels, and see "natural evil" as part of the impact of Satan and demonic forces "corrupting creation".
Openness has a strong eschatological hope: while God has allowed for freedom in his creation, God is still sovereign, so has the power and a plan to be sure that all of his promises and ultimate purposes are sure. So we can still hope in the promised future of Rev. 22.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
From my experience, there are three real approaches to this problem:
The Job solution. In essence this says that God has the bigger picture, he is running the universe, and because he has that big picture, we cannot argue. What it means is that we are insignificant, because our suffering is part of the bigger plan. In fact, we see at the end he has twice the wealth, a whole lot of replacement family (because numbers of children are important, not the actual individuals), and the signs of Gods blessing seem to be the Health, Wealth and Happiness gospel.
I'm going to nuance this up a bit.
First of all, "we cannot argue." Oh yes we can, as Job himself does. And you'll notice God says at the end to Job's friends, "You have not spoken rightly of me, as my servant Job has." Nice compliment there. Apparently God has no problem with arguing, yelling, etc. (Job gets slapped around a bit at the very end to remind him of his place in things--that is, the fact that he is limited, with a limited viewpoint and understanding--but there's no place at all where God says "Don't argue" or "Just shut up and take it."
Similarly, Job is not insignificant. He is VERY significant, witness the fact that this book ends up in the Bible. And it's one of the very oldest bits. If God has any hand at all in the Bible's assembly, that fact should give us something to think about.
His significance is also there in the bare fact that God takes the time to argue with him. I mean, what? God comes in a whirlwind to spend two chapters smacking him around? Okay, maybe that's not the ideal form of attention,
![[Biased]](wink.gif) but every naughty child will tell you that any attention is better than none. We don't yell at people we don't value--not for any length of time, anyway. We just blow them off. God does not blow off Job.
Finally, the "happily ever after" bit in Job. Uh, no. Job gets ten more children, NOT double his previous number, precisely BECAUSE children are not replaceable. The ten who died at the beginning still exist in God's view. They are Job's children, living or dead, and God will not insult a grieving father by suggesting they are in the same category as donkeys or sheep. So he does in fact double the number by adding ten more to make a total of twenty children, ten living and ten dead. (does anybody besides me think this is a little hard on Mrs. Job?)
The whole health, wealth, happiness thing has already been shown to be hollow by, well, the whole preceding book of Job. So what's going on at the end? Certainly not a sudden reverse of theology ("Oh, yeah, Job's friends? You were right after all"). I'm not sure what's going on. Maybe it's just plain comfort. Maybe it's a "boo ya" in the face of Job's enemies. But the one thing it can't be is a sheer contradiction of the lesson the whole book teaches: that earthly prosperity has nothing to do with whether God loves you or not, and earthly disaster is no way to determine whether God is punishing someone or not.
On theodicy, I'll go for Job's solution (which is basically "Wait and see"). We don't get the whole answer, we are basically told that we couldn't understand it if we did--but we are loved, we are listened to, and (sometimes) we are comforted. And ultimately it will all be sorted. As Staupitz recommended, we look at it "through the wounds of Christ."
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped - sorry - yes we can argue, but God does not answer our arguments.
And I do think the ending is HW&H, even though this is disregarded in the rest of the book, because Job is rewarded for his faithfulness by Wealth and Happiness (Health too, I suspect, but I don't think this is clear). It differs because it is not a sign of Gods favour, just his random blessing.
Is Job significant? His story is, because it is meant to tell us that our arguments are futile, because God Knows Best. But him as a person (assuming he actually existed) is toyed with like James Bond. It is acceptable because there is a Lesson To Be Learnt. But really, God sucks in this story.
I suppose that is where my problem lies. I don't want to be a lesson for others. I don't want to be growing that much. I don't want to feel deeply spiritual about my suffering.
I want it to stop hurting. And I know nothing that really respond to that.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, we're just going to have to disagree on the meaning of Job, I suppose. But as for this:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I want it to stop hurting. And I know nothing that really respond to that.
I agree with you. It sucks. It's "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" time. And there is no earthly answer to that. There's the Cross, and there's the Resurrection. But the Resurrection, though it responds to the Cross, does not nullify it. How I wish it did sometimes.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I suppose that is where my problem lies. I don't want to be a lesson for others. I don't want to be growing that much. I don't want to feel deeply spiritual about my suffering.
I want it to stop hurting. And I know nothing that really respond to that.
I find my thoughts and feelings parallelled in your's. I started seriously wondering about these things in the 1970s, and managed to, with time, put the personal aspects aside. Distance in time somewhat buries the hurts and allows the emotions to settle somewhat, such that the theories seem more sensible.
With more recent life events, repeating or rather rhyming with those from 40 years ago has made me consider things differently that what has been said earlier on this thread. Some direction from a wise priest or two has helped as well. Here's what I've come up with thus far:
1. There is no purpose to suffering, and there is no causation with God in it. The implications of this are severe, in that it calls into question everything, including Christ's suffering and death. It's okay to have such heretical thoughts and don't let anyone help you censor them. Explore it all.
2. We do not have someone with us in our suffering except actual human beings reach out to us. There is usually an absence, at least for me, and no sense of actual presence. Jesus felt abandoned while dying, and we may experience the same thing. It is real and not a moral or spiritual failing to have no perception of God, Jesus or Spirit. People with the sense of divine presence have something to tell us, but their experience does not apply as a model for some of us and expecting that we should have such experiences means people like me are failures, which is also a rejectable idea.
3. Some people will tell you things like "God has a purpose" and that things will be well in the end etc. I think they do this for themselves, not as a comfort to you when you're suffering. They may have the worry that what happened to you could happen to them and they defend themselves from that scary thought by telling themselves things like this. They should be forgiven, though might also need to be avoided if they repeat their well-meaning but seemingly selfish words.
4. There is comfort in routine and practice. Which is where liturgy and prayer come in. Expectancy for more than this comfort and reduction of anxiety may be very disappointing. You don't have to know the answers to do stuff.
5. I think we're supposed to continue like Job, but have no expectation of any resolution, unlike him. People can be very kind when you're suffering, and the kind people may not be the same ones you thought would come through with support. Some people avoid the suffering of others that violates their world view.
Edit: there's more to say, but I can't formulate more thoughts just now, time presses. Thanks for bringing this topic up.
[ 01. December 2014, 15:47: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Very interesting stuff, there, no prophet.
At times of maximum suffering in my life, I wasn't worrying about God being absent! Maybe that crops up after the fact, as I begin to recover.
I remember an old friend of mine was in hospital for months with a broken back, and I asked him if he meditated, and he said, fuck, no.
But I think it's OK not to experience God at all; it's OK to disbelieve in God, and so on. After a while, I usually find that that comes back, I mean my sense of God. So there is a kind of rhythm. But I am not trying to make sense of it - I see that as a fool's errand.
But I think that one reason that God feels absent, is that my conception of God has been shattered. But I don't see that as the purpose of suffering - it has none.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
No theodicean convo's complete without the Epicurean paradox:-
quote:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
If God's omnipotent, buck stops there. Could've created a world without pain, and moreover, Christianity claims that paradise is our endzone, a blissful new heaven and new earth. We won't learn anything from suffering, 'cause we get clued in after death. So why not skip straight to the happy ending?
Looks a lot like theologians trying to reconcile concepts with a situation that don't fit.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
The inadequacy of Christian theodicy is one of my major sticking points with being able to believe in Christianity in any meaningful way.
It seems to, as Byron stated just above, back itself into a corner and picture God and his characteristics in a way that is incompatible with the realities of this world.
One thing that has always puzzled me about the the 'evil is the result of a fallen creation' particularly in the case of so called 'natural evil' is that fundamentally the universe WORKS. It's not horribly broken with error messages everywhere, it's incredibly finely balanced in order to allow it to work and altering it in any way WOULD break it.
The things that we find tragic and difficult eg natural disasters are actually fundamental to the continual existence of our planet and life on it. Mars for example has no tectonic activity and no volcanic activity, consequently it lost its magnetic field and atmosphere. The greatest and most cataclysmic explosions and devastation that we are aware of, Supernovae and other stellar explosions, are actually responsible for us being here period so I can't really square that with 'bad things happen because we're broken'.
Just as a slight aside point I do find it very odd how people will on the one hand argue for the metaphorical and spiritual interpretation of Genesis on the one hand, and on the other use the actions of Adam and Eve and 'The Fall' as an explanation for human evil. I feel like insisting they pick a side.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Great points, Macrina. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
The "fall" narrative is bizarre. Eve and Adam are wholly to blame for actions taken within a framework designed by their creator. Say what? Doesn't the designer, who plopped forbidden fruit in front of them, bear just a teeny bit of the responsibility? If you put a poison apple in a child's playpen, you're criminally negligent.
Then they had no concept of good and evil, so couldn't even know they were doing wrong. What happens in court to people so unwell they don't understand right and wrong? If the law's applied as it should be, they're acquitted.
Moderates who reject the literal Genesis narrative should junk the whole thing. 'Course, if they did that, they'd be radicals, going back to the roots and starting over.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
The inadequacy of Christian theodicy is one of my major sticking points with being able to believe in Christianity in any meaningful way...
One thing that has always puzzled me about the the 'evil is the result of a fallen creation' particularly in the case of so called 'natural evil' is that fundamentally the universe WORKS. It's not horribly broken with error messages everywhere, it's incredibly finely balanced in order to allow it to work and altering it in any way WOULD break it.
The things that we find tragic and difficult eg natural disasters are actually fundamental to the continual existence of our planet and life on it. Mars for example has no tectonic activity and no volcanic activity, consequently it lost its magnetic field and atmosphere. The greatest and most cataclysmic explosions and devastation that we are aware of, Supernovae and other stellar explosions, are actually responsible for us being here period so I can't really square that with 'bad things happen because we're broken'.
It's not because we are broken, or just because we are, but because creation as a whole is broken. Yes, it works-- as in it is natural, it works in a uniform cause-and-effect cycle. And it is the way thing have always been. But it is also the source of much suffering-- both human and animal. Evolution itself "works" through death and a machiavellian "survival of the fittest" that means that both humans and animals suffer in often quite cruel ways.
Boyd's view takes this suffering seriously, and answers (imperfectly, but better than most) the question of why God would allow this to happen.
l
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Just as a slight aside point I do find it very odd how people will on the one hand argue for the metaphorical and spiritual interpretation of Genesis on the one hand, and on the other use the actions of Adam and Eve and 'The Fall' as an explanation for human evil. I feel like insisting they pick a side.
It is a metaphor, but, like all metaphors, it is a metaphor
for something. While not a literal historical event, the story exists for a reason. It has a point. IMHO, that point fits nicely with the Open view of theodicy I've been advocating:
1. The significance of human freedom. The point of the story seems to highlight the exact, crucial choice that is at the heart of the Openness paradigm: is it better to have a world without suffering, without pain, without death or disease-- but also without freedom-- where the inhabitants are mere puppets walking thru a divinely chosen path? Or is it better to be free-- free to choose love, but also to choose hate-- and therefore bear the consequences of those choices? Gen. 3 is a metaphorical story describing "why things are the way they are"-- we are free, and responsible.
2. Human freedom does not exist in a vacuum. There are other created creatures that are free (specifically, spiritual beings). And the free choices of those free creatures-- both humans and non-humans, impact all of creation. The way things are is not the way they should be-- or the way they one day will be.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[...] Evolution itself "works" through death and a machiavellian "survival of the fittest" that means that both humans and animals suffer in often quite cruel ways. [...]
Words like "Machiavellian" denote intent, which evolution is devoid of. Adaptation is a better term than the value-laden "survival of the fittest." The most productive traits survive and flourish.
Mainstream Christianity's still not begun to make the conceptual leap from an ordered universe to the messy reality we observe around us. Its tried to shoehorn it all together with concepts like theistic evolution, but it doesn't fit. (As I've not debated evolution per se, I hope this isn't a DH.)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
One of the problems from the non-believer perspective is where the idea arises that theodicy is about trying to convince ourselves and others of God's existence and qualities despite increasing 'scientific evidence' to the contrary. This is not the case.
Theodicy is one of the branches of theology within which people who are aware of the existence and qualities of God try to wrestle with how this fits into the messy realities of life. It isn't new. People have been doing this since dot, hence the stories of creation and of the fall.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It should be survival of the fitted, really, since 'fittest' often seems to be linked to some brutal scenario.
I think Macrina's points about exploding stars and tectonic plates are very good - pain and death are also very helpful to the continuance of life.
There is something fishy for me about such things being labelled part of a broken or imperfect world, when in fact, they make the world possible.
As Byron says, reconciling these facts about nature with the notion of God is some task. Can it be done? Dunno.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
The inadequacy of Christian theodicy is one of my major sticking points with being able to believe in Christianity in any meaningful way.
Then do you have a non-Christian theodicy that works? A way that helps to understand why we suffer that is not nihilistic?
Because without a meaning, without a justification, suffering has no purpose, and I might as well die. No? That seems to be the conclusion Nietzsche came to.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
The inadequacy of Christian theodicy is one of my major sticking points with being able to believe in Christianity in any meaningful way.
Then do you have a non-Christian theodicy that works? A way that helps to understand why we suffer that is not nihilistic?
Because without a meaning, without a justification, suffering has no purpose, and I might as well die. No? That seems to be the conclusion Nietzsche came to.
If the universe has no purpose, we create our own. As the Watchmen comic put it:-
quote:
Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose.
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us.
Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world.
Just don't start saying, "I am Rorschach," kay?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[...] Evolution itself "works" through death and a machiavellian "survival of the fittest" that means that both humans and animals suffer in often quite cruel ways. [...]
Words like "Machiavellian" denote intent, which evolution is devoid of. Adaptation is a better term than the value-laden "survival of the fittest." The most productive traits survive and flourish.
That sounds a bit euphemistic. My point is that the outcome is beneficial to the species as a whole, but at a high cost to the individual in terms of suffering. While "evolution" is a system so, yes, incapable of intent, the assumption we're bringing to the table when we start talking about theodicy is that there is an intelligent Creator behind evolution that does have an intent and purpose. Which, again, begs the question of theodicy-- why this sort of universe, ordered and structured in a way that depends on suffering and death, and in fact seems to be structured in a way contrary to what we've been led to believe are Kingdom purposes? One way to respond to that dissonance is to remove the assumption of an intelligent or beneficent Creator behind it. Another is to move towards something like Boyd's view that I was advocating for.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
The inadequacy of Christian theodicy is one of my major sticking points with being able to believe in Christianity in any meaningful way.
Then do you have a non-Christian theodicy that works? A way that helps to understand why we suffer that is not nihilistic?
Because without a meaning, without a justification, suffering has no purpose, and I might as well die. No? That seems to be the conclusion Nietzsche came to.
I have found something meaningful about suffering in Eastern religion, although not of an intellectual nature. I mean, I don't think one can contemplate suffering as an idea, and come up with any solution to it.
There is an old saying in Zen: hell isn't punishment; it's training - which I have found useful. Ah but, training for what?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Macrina's points about exploding stars and tectonic plates are very good - pain and death are also very helpful to the continuance of life.
There is something fishy for me about such things being labelled part of a broken or imperfect world, when in fact, they make the world possible.
That seems to me to be dodging the question. Yes, of course these sorts of natural phenomenon are essential to the universe as we know it. The point is why? Why is it that these factors are essential to the universe? Would it be possible to have a different sort of universe, one w/o these sorts of phenomenon and natural suffering? And if it is possible, then why don't we?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Macrina's points about exploding stars and tectonic plates are very good - pain and death are also very helpful to the continuance of life.
There is something fishy for me about such things being labelled part of a broken or imperfect world, when in fact, they make the world possible.
That seems to me to be dodging the question. Yes, of course these sorts of natural phenomenon are essential to the universe as we know it. The point is why? Why is it that these factors are essential to the universe? Would it be possible to have a different sort of universe, one w/o these sorts of phenomenon and natural suffering? And if it is possible, then why don't we?
Well, your why question baffles me really. I'm not sure if you are asking why of an omnipotent loving God, or not. That does seem to be a contradiction, since presumably, such a creator could create a better world, or in fact, has created a better world, but not just yet.
For me, that is a way of not accepting life; but there you are, I suppose Christianity is partly based on that, isn't it?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I think it's OK not to experience God at all; it's OK to disbelieve in God, and so on. After a while, I usually find that that comes back, I mean my sense of God. So there is a kind of rhythm. But I am not trying to make sense of it - I see that as a fool's errand.
This is the part, about which I said it is the doing, not the thinking. I've more sense of something sensible amid the insensible in that. To tell an impersonal story about this: We visited Krackow, Poland and Auschwitz, and were, the next evening in the Karkskirche in Vienna for Mozart's Requiem. This was truth more than any other explanation.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I think that one reason that God feels absent, is that my conception of God has been shattered. But I don't see that as the purpose of suffering - it has none.
I'm perhaps seeing this as after-the-fact rationalization, and this is perhaps all my problem and not at all your's. I am wondering if it is possible to have a conception, other than wee snippets of understanding which of themselves, cannot be trusted.
The Rorschach was raised by Byron.
I think it's worse (or better) than that. We have no pictures, only descriptions of formless splats of ink by people with imaginations and terms of reference different from our's. We don't actually get to look at anything ourselves.
I find the criticism of Christian theodicy troubling. We have to draw on experience from somewhere. Perhaps some experience is wisdom? Where do we start from then?
I enjoy the less crisis-ridden words Ecclesiates: Whatever is has already been, and what will be has been before (3:15). -- can someone tell what poetry of the soul will work as well?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
[...] The Rorschach was raised by Byron.
I think it's worse (or better) than that. We have no pictures, only descriptions of formless splats of ink by people with imaginations and terms of reference different from our's. We don't actually get to look at anything ourselves. [...]
That's actually how the chapter ends! As Rorschach's shrink puts it:-
quote:
I sat on the bed. I looked at the Rorschach blot. I tried to make it look like a spreading tree, shadows pooled beneath it, but it didn't. It looked more like a dead cat I once found, the fat, glistening grubs writhing blindly, squirming over each other, frantically tunneling away from the light. But even that isn't the real horror. The horror is this: in the end, it is simply a picture of empty meaningless blackness.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That sounds a bit euphemistic. My point is that the outcome is beneficial to the species as a whole, but at a high cost to the individual in terms of suffering. While "evolution" is a system so, yes, incapable of intent, the assumption we're bringing to the table when we start talking about theodicy is that there is an intelligent Creator behind evolution that does have an intent and purpose. Which, again, begs the question of theodicy-- why this sort of universe, ordered and structured in a way that depends on suffering and death, and in fact seems to be structured in a way contrary to what we've been led to believe are Kingdom purposes? One way to respond to that dissonance is to remove the assumption of an intelligent or beneficent Creator behind it. Another is to move towards something like Boyd's view that I was advocating for.
Rejigging theism is one solution, sure, but if a mechanism of action suggests no plan, it's reasonable to infer that no plan exists. I guess you could reconcile trial and error natural selection with theism, but it'd take something more radical than Boyd suggesting that God doesn't know the future for sure.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Then do you have a non-Christian theodicy that works? A way that helps to understand why we suffer that is not nihilistic?
Because without a meaning, without a justification, suffering has no purpose, and I might as well die. No? That seems to be the conclusion Nietzsche came to.
No, but then theodicy is should really be considered to be a specifically monotheistic if not specifically Christian issue. I don't have a particular problem with the existence of God and gods - this is something I do believe in on some level. Nor do I have a particular problem with the existence of suffering and 'evil' in the universe and the human condition either - it's pretty self evident that those things exist too inasmuch as there are processes and events that cause us pain and sorrow.
My problem arises when we try to square the circle and explain how the Christian God is compatible with what we see in the world.
I think the idea that we have to have an explanation for suffering that somehow justifies it or else we might as well all go and jump off a cliff is a false one. I'm accepting of the idea that the world can be full of pain. I don't like it but not liking it won't change it. We don't go seeking explanations for love and kindness in the same way and these forces are just as powerful and integrated into our psyche as guilt, anger, greed, and malice. If life were all suffering I'd agree with your point, but it isn't, we have many moments of joy to counteract the sadness.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Macrina's points about exploding stars and tectonic plates are very good - pain and death are also very helpful to the continuance of life.
There is something fishy for me about such things being labelled part of a broken or imperfect world, when in fact, they make the world possible.
That seems to me to be dodging the question. Yes, of course these sorts of natural phenomenon are essential to the universe as we know it. The point is why? Why is it that these factors are essential to the universe? Would it be possible to have a different sort of universe, one w/o these sorts of phenomenon and natural suffering? And if it is possible, then why don't we?
Well, your why question baffles me really. I'm not sure if you are asking why of an omnipotent loving God, or not. That does seem to be a contradiction, since presumably, such a creator could create a better world, or in fact, has created a better world, but not just yet.
For me, that is a way of not accepting life; but there you are, I suppose Christianity is partly based on that, isn't it?
Yes, or at least the version of Christianity I am advocating. It is suggesting that life as we experience it now-- with both human-caused and natural suffering and evil-- was and is not life as it was intended to be, or life as it will one day be.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
]Rejigging theism is one solution, sure, but if a mechanism of action suggests no plan, it's reasonable to infer that no plan exists. I guess you could reconcile trial and error natural selection with theism, but it'd take something more radical than Boyd suggesting that God doesn't know the future for sure.
fwiw, Boyd suggests no such thing. Nor would I.
And I don't see in the natural order of the universe the chaos you're implying. It very much looks like a "plan"-- an orderly system of operation within clearly defined cause and effect. The problem is not that there is no plan, it's that the plan seems at odds with what we (Christians) assume to be true about God and about God's Kingdom. That requires us to rethink our assumptions about God and/or the nature of the universe one way or the other.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think humans resist change, and feel that it's wrong somehow. I grew to be an adult man, and then I shall get sick and die.
But the two sides are connected, aren't they? I wax and wane.
All this talk of a broken world is unconvincing for me, as it presupposes something else. But this is what we have.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I had a colleague, of a type of Christianity which isn't mine, but a type which led her to succour the afflicted (she walked through crowds of newspaper creeps outside the house of the parents of someone who had down something the papers didn't approve of, to be with them in their seige). She would be called to speak at churches, both in the UK and abroad, but would only go if it wouldn't be only lip-service. (That's where I learned what that expression meant.) Some of the things she believed went beyond the demands of a literal Bible belief, but she was so (I'm stumped for a word here - good doesn't quite do it) that I never felt moved to argue that she was wrong about them.
I was going through a bad patch (and it was nothing like the bad patches she had gone through) and she told me how the Book of Job had helped her, especially the last chapter, so I went away and read it. And I thought, as sometimes when hearing someone else's ministry, that it spoke to her, but not to me. (Especially given the disposability of Job's first family. What about the Book of Job's Wife?) I felt God's arguments at the end were evasive, and like those of a parent at the end of their tether. "Because I am your father and what I say goes." So it didn't help me.
She later became ill with a brain tumour and had to leave work for treatment. She came back to visit, and play piano for our assembly for the last time, and her family warned us in advance that she did not know, and wasn't to know, that it was for the last time, as her op and radiotherapy could only provide a remission, and that the tumour would return. So we were all complicit with allowing her to live through a lie. A good lie, which would have been easier to go along with, and understandable, except that she said to me that it was wrong for evil to triumph, and she believed that the evil manifest in the tumour had been defeated by God. That made it very hard, to respond to that belief, knowing I was being dishonest.
I never saw her again. She had about nine months, but obviously at the end she would have known that the prayers had not been effective, and that what was wrong had won. Though she had tried to live like Job.
And I was not at all happy with the way God had treated her, who had served him faithfully. I did not know the word theodicy at the time. But it was an experience that fed the arguments in my mind which fall under that heading.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Penny S
That's a very powerful story. It baffles me that people think that a tumour contains evil or something against God, and that God should therefore cure it. There are so many preconceptions in that, that I don't want to unravel them really.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fwiw, Boyd suggests no such thing. Nor would I.
OK, my mistake, was a quick Google. What is his/your position?
quote:
And I don't see in the natural order of the universe the chaos you're implying. It very much looks like a "plan"-- an orderly system of operation within clearly defined cause and effect. The problem is not that there is no plan, it's that the plan seems at odds with what we (Christians) assume to be true about God and about God's Kingdom. That requires us to rethink our assumptions about God and/or the nature of the universe one way or the other.
I'd agree that we need to rethink assumptions, although disagree about how.
To me, everything from our bodies to nature suggests a lack of design. Why do we spontaneously develop cancers, suffer lower back pain, and fall prey to bacteria? To call human beings imperfect creatures is a heroic understatement.
If we're not designed, but the result of natural selection, bad design becomes near miraculous success.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Penny S
That's a very powerful story. It baffles me that people think that a tumour contains evil or something against God, and that God should therefore cure it. There are so many preconceptions in that, that I don't want to unravel them really.
There was a peculiar coda, when I heard about her having died. I included her in my prayers, and I sort of saw her, and she was horrified about something. So my prayer turned into my saying to God "Don't you dare treat her like that!" or something of that sort. I can't remember what the response was, or even if there was one.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fwiw, Boyd suggests no such thing. Nor would I.
OK, my mistake, was a quick Google. What is his/your position?
Boyd's/my position is that God knows thoroughly all of the infinite possible futures, knows each as a potential future dependent upon the free choices made by free creatures. God has a plan in each potential future to accomplish his ultimate purpose (the restoration of all creation).
Then, to the point of theodicy, this gets refined in terms of "spiritual warfare" (but not in the Kraftian sense)-- with a pre-big bang "corruption" of creation that was foreseen as a possible but not inevitable future resulting from the free choice of free spiritual beings (e.g. Satan).
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
[QUOTE]
To me, everything from our bodies to nature suggests a lack of design. Why do we spontaneously develop cancers, suffer lower back pain, and fall prey to bacteria? To call human beings imperfect creatures is a heroic understatement.
If we're not designed, but the result of natural selection, bad design becomes near miraculous success.
But again, that's begging the question. Once you poise it as a "theodicy" question, you are presupposing the existence of God. So then the question becomes, why all this suffering if God is good? If you don't presuppose a good and powerful God, then there's no theodicy problem-- life just sucks.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Boyd's/my position is that God knows thoroughly all of the infinite possible futures, knows each as a potential future dependent upon the free choices made by free creatures. God has a plan in each potential future to accomplish his ultimate purpose (the restoration of all creation).
Then, to the point of theodicy, this gets refined in terms of "spiritual warfare" (but not in the Kraftian sense)-- with a pre-big bang "corruption" of creation that was foreseen as a possible but not inevitable future resulting from the free choice of free spiritual beings (e.g. Satan).
Thanks for such a concise summary. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
This doesn't get around the problem of an omnipotent god creating Satan to begin with, does it? If God wanted reality to be perfect, he could just do a Picard, and make it so. For some reason, it seems, God didn't.
quote:
But again, that's begging the question. Once you poise it as a "theodicy" question, you are presupposing the existence of God. So then the question becomes, why all this suffering if God is good? If you don't presuppose a good and powerful God, then there's no theodicy problem-- life just sucks.
Less begging the question than looking at possibilities and their logical consequence. If God exists, then these are the issues raised. For all we know, there is no God or gods, and life just sucks.
Personally I don't get too caught up in this. Whatever metaphysical answers lie beyond our ken, we can undoubtedly make a difference in the world as is. So I focus on that.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Boyd is a whack job. He gives open theism a bad name.
God cannot know even if it's going to rain tomorrow. And daemons aren't allowed out much. There's NOTHING wrong with creation. This is the best of all possible worlds at this point of evolution.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Boyd's/my position is that God knows thoroughly all of the infinite possible futures, knows each as a potential future dependent upon the free choices made by free creatures. God has a plan in each potential future to accomplish his ultimate purpose (the restoration of all creation).
Then, to the point of theodicy, this gets refined in terms of "spiritual warfare" (but not in the Kraftian sense)-- with a pre-big bang "corruption" of creation that was foreseen as a possible but not inevitable future resulting from the free choice of free spiritual beings (e.g. Satan).
Thanks for such a concise summary.
This doesn't get around the problem of an omnipotent god creating Satan to begin with, does it? If God wanted reality to be perfect, he could just do a Picard, and make it so. For some reason, it seems, God didn't.
Open Theism posits that Satan (and his minions) were created as free agents, just as humans were. The purpose for creating them (and us) free is so they are free to choose love. Satan/demons (as are angels) can freely choose good or evil, within some constraints (just like us). Again, freedom is proportional-- so the degree to which you are free to do good/choose love is similarly the degree to which you are free to do evil/choose hate. Individual free agents, both human and otherwise, choose anywhere on that continuum. God could not logically create us free to love w/o the risk of us choosing evil/hate (again, this was a "known possible future")-- same is true of Satan. The only alternative would be a sort of deterministic puppet world with no real free choices, and therefore no real love.
Or so the theory goes.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
btw, Byron, sorry for my initial somewhat defensive response to your (not unusual) misreading of Boyd. I was too used to responding to this:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Boyd is a whack job. He gives open theism a bad name.
God cannot know even if it's going to rain tomorrow. And daemons aren't allowed out much. There's NOTHING wrong with creation. This is the best of all possible worlds at this point of evolution.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Boyd's/my position is that God knows thoroughly all of the infinite possible futures, knows each as a potential future dependent upon the free choices made by free creatures. God has a plan in each potential future to accomplish his ultimate purpose (the restoration of all creation).
Then, to the point of theodicy, this gets refined in terms of "spiritual warfare" (but not in the Kraftian sense)-- with a pre-big bang "corruption" of creation that was foreseen as a possible but not inevitable future resulting from the free choice of free spiritual beings (e.g. Satan).
Thanks for such a concise summary.
Thanks seconded. How is this at core different from a fatalism - that what happens happens, and God will find some way of making things right? So it doesn't really matter what we do?
It sounds a bit like the film Sliding Doors, where the initial difference seems to produce two different time-lines, but - crucially - they converge to the "ultimate purpose". What it means, to me, is that our choices and decisions are meaningless, because somehow they will all be resolved correctly.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
God cannot know the non-existent, null passively at all.
The only question of theodicy is why would God step in at all outside the context of the Incarnation?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Boyd's/my position is that God knows thoroughly all of the infinite possible futures, knows each as a potential future dependent upon the free choices made by free creatures. God has a plan in each potential future to accomplish his ultimate purpose (the restoration of all creation).
Then, to the point of theodicy, this gets refined in terms of "spiritual warfare" (but not in the Kraftian sense)-- with a pre-big bang "corruption" of creation that was foreseen as a possible but not inevitable future resulting from the free choice of free spiritual beings (e.g. Satan).
Thanks for such a concise summary.
Thanks seconded. How is this at core different from a fatalism - that what happens happens, and God will find some way of making things right? So it doesn't really matter what we do?
It sounds a bit like the film Sliding Doors, where the initial difference seems to produce two different time-lines, but - crucially - they converge to the "ultimate purpose". What it means, to me, is that our choices and decisions are meaningless, because somehow they will all be resolved correctly.
It's really quite the opposite of fatalism-- Open Theism holds that we (free creatures) have a great deal of control over the future. That our free choices matter. In classical theism where God has exhaustive foreknowledge of our choices as a fixed, definitive future, there is that fatalism-- because you don't really have an option of choosing differently, so your experience of choice is an illusion, you can't really choose differently. In Open Theism choice is real, and has a real impact on the future. Which is why we see and experience things that are contrary to God's will-- i.e. evil, suffering-- and, more arguably, even natural things like disease and death.
But, unlike God, our freedom (and the freedom of spiritual beings like angels or demons) exists within limits. There are things we can choose, and things we can't choose. I can choose whether to eat a steak or ice cream or broccoli for dinner, but I can't choose to eat a griffin. I can choose to be kind or mean-spirited, but I can't choose to fly to Jupiter.
God cannot control or foresee our free choices as definitive events, because that would change the nature of time and of choice. But like a master chess player, God can foresee every potential future choice, and have a plan in place to accomplish his ultimate purpose. Again, that doesn't mean everything that happens is chosen or purposed by God-- things happen that are clearly not God's will-- but rather that there is an ultimate, final purpose-- some things that God has promised-- that will ultimately be accomplished, because God has determined to do it. And because God can anticipate every possible future choice (as possibilities, not definitive realities) he has the power to work in every situation to insure his ultimate purpose is not deterred (Rom. 8:28).
All of this conforms with our experience of the world and the way we intuitively act and operate (unlike classical theism).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
And isn't that the point of Jesus (to shift threads slightly)? - humans had strayed too far from the divine plan, and Jesus's presence here somehow reprieved us and pointed us back towards God?
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I might well be understanding it wrong, but surely if the aim is to achieve "God's ultimate purpose" then the route we get there is irrelevant? Sliding Doors again, the final scene happens whichever route is taken, so the process to get there doesn't matter? The choices made to move in that direction do not change the future, so they are irrelevant?
If the redemption of the world can be achieved whether I break my leg (for example) or not, then why not ensure that I don't, because for me, that is better. I suffer less. Because it doesn't change the final result, my suffering means nothing?
Surely a loving God would rather a way to an end that involved less suffering? Surely the best route to his ends would be one that involved the least suffering? Because the suffering doesn't make a difference.
And OK, if there are many possible end-scenarios, and the better ones involve my suffering, surely this is back to the fact that my suffering is for the greater good? For a better end result?
I do have some sympathy with this approach, I am just wanting to work out the implications, to see whether I can find a place for it. I don't actually think that God has a plan for reality to achieve, that he is more concerned about individuals, where they are and what they do. In that sense, nothing can thwart him, because he works through whatever.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I might well be understanding it wrong, but surely if the aim is to achieve "God's ultimate purpose" then the route we get there is irrelevant? Sliding Doors again, the final scene happens whichever route is taken, so the process to get there doesn't matter? The choices made to move in that direction do not change the future, so they are irrelevant?
The final end is the same, but the interim is very much dependent upon our free choices and those of other free creatures (which impacts us). So your choices and mine very much matter-- they very much shape the world we live in.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
If the redemption of the world can be achieved whether I break my leg (for example) or not, then why not ensure that I don't, because for me, that is better. I suffer less. Because it doesn't change the final result, my suffering means nothing?
Surely a loving God would rather a way to an end that involved less suffering? Surely the best route to his ends would be one that involved the least suffering? Because the suffering doesn't make a difference.
.
Absolutely. God desires the route with the least (or no) suffering. Pain, death, disease are not God's choice. Again, in the Openness paradigm, the world as we now know it is not the world God desires it to be, but rather the world as intersected by both human and non-human sin and evil.
So God's culpability is in creating a world where there is freedom-- both human and nonhuman. Open Theists believe that was essential for there to be love. So the capacity for evil was essential to the greater good of having the potential for love.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And OK, if there are many possible end-scenarios, and the better ones involve my suffering, surely this is back to the fact that my suffering is for the greater good? For a better end result?
.
No-- that's more of a Calvinist position-- that all suffering has to serve some greater good. Openness would be the opposite-- your suffering is not God's desire, not God's will. It is what has happened because of the way the world has been corrupted either by human or nonhuman choices. So, whether that's of comfort or not to the sufferer, sort of depends on your perspective. I find some find it comforting to believe there is some "purpose" to their suffering. But others find it more honest and consistent with their experience to affirm the Open view that suffering is a huge and horrible, tragic waste-- and a sign that the world is not as it should be.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The only question of theodicy is why would God step in at all outside the context of the Incarnation?
Maybe incarnation is what God does, always did, always will do. Step in, be involved, be present in and through the physical world, but not (or not usually) jarringly to our sensitivities. See the current thread on miracles and the subtle presence and help and reassurance people see happening.
As to whether God knows if it will rain tomorrow, my current theology is God knows all possibilities and blocks the ones God can't bring good out of.
Good from God's viewpoint, which is often not ours, because it is not based on health wealth happiness and lazy comfort in this life but on growing in spiritual wholeness.
Growing (in any ability or knowledge or personality) normally involves failures and mistakes along the way. We bump into situations that shatter our understanding of God because that understanding is (of course) too small and limits us in relating to God and others.
Paul says all things work for the good if we allow that. But the long term good is often different than the immediate relief we want at the time. Looking back over years or decades, I am thankful now for some things that I deeply protested then. Which doesn't stop me from protesting current pains!
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Schroedinger's cat. Aye. Suffering doesn't mean anything, it's contingent on creation, an aspect, a hand of its clapping, a perichoretic subset of creation for creator and created. Take it away, there is only a cartoon of existence. Intervene sixty nine times in two hundred million (Lourdes) and that shows a lack of ... conviction for a start. Intervene every time and life would be impossible.
And Belle, yes I can testify to God working with me. He worked with me on Friday giving me an example of dying beautifully, magnificently, in a friend. On Monday we were laughing together irreverently. God enjoyed it.
And yes, perhaps that heterodoxy is in fact true. We'll have to wait and see beyond the dark glass. It would be simpler if it were.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
