Theodicy

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Thomas

In other words, they died because '**** happens' — and believing in God does not, in some mysterious way, means that **** will no longer happen ...

Thomas

Matt 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble. {Or, in other words, "**** happens."--sg}

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I see God as transcendent of good and evil, as (I think) Dondi is also saying.

Hi luna ,
Me too.

The difference is self-consciousness, or knowledge of good and evil. Our ability to choose beyond instinct.

I think I partially agree. We can’t get into the mind of another person, let alone another species. IMHO, higher mammals are self-conscious and are not driven solely by instinct, but yes the good and evil stuff are human-created concepts.

But if there is no referent, how do you determine good? That which is beneficial to you, to your kin, to your community, to the environment? The bigger the scope the more conflict of interest there is.

As I went on to say…

I understand your point...we are all interconnected and our welfare depends on the welfare of at least some others. But there is still a lot of conflict of interest as we move further from our self and family.

I agree. That’s where the hard work is; trying to see someone in trouble on the news on the other side of the world as a member of your own family.

I think you're saying that you can choose good with no external/objective standard for good. Well, since we all have to choose what we think represents or reveals good, whether we believe this to be a standard for everyone or not, I guess I can't really argue with that.

Oh good!

Sorry if this does not make sense.

As much as mine probably ever do!

s.

[lunamoth]

Hi All, Thank you for the replies.

I was reading a bit more about theodicy last night. The approach that makes the most 'sense' to me is that G!d has chosen to limit his own power in the act of creation so that we would have choice and free will and love. At least this is logically possible. The manner in which G!d intervenes in the world (answers prayers) is a whole other can of worms.

I also came across something called 'open theism,' which I detected is a hated idea by some (evangelicals?), but also makes sense because it suggests that while G!d is omniscient in knowing all possible outcomes, the future is not yet created and so G!d is acting freely Himself in each moment and did not 'know' at the ouset the extent of our bad choices.


And then I tried to understand a bit more about where theologian Paul Tillich is coming from, because I so like the ring of 'the Ground of Being,' and the idea that G!d is Being rather than a being is intuitively and aestically pleasing to me, and recalls Paul's words "in Him I live and move and have my bieng." And it reminds me that G!d created me and sustains me moment to moment so I when I exclaim 'G!d is Creator,' I don't mean a being who fashioned Adam out of dust or put the world in motion like a clock, but that through G!d all things came into being and without Whom there is no being.

In that case, the problem of theodicy seems to fall away.

Except of course that Tillich was accused of atheism.

[Dondi]

Great points, Thomas. It's easy to get into the mindset that we will die in our sins - that we get sent to hell for our sins...yada...yada. But as much as the Bible makes of sin, it isn't the real issue. You could be perfect in every way, but do you have a relationship with God? Do you have that life-giving Spirit in you? Eternal life is in knowing God (John 17:3). We want to get into heaven, but do we really think we can get in without a real change in ourselves? You load up Heaven with the same people that are now living here on earth and you know what you get? Absolutely no difference.

[Dondi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I think being and loving and having choice are all good. But I see your point I think. I see God as transcendent of good and evil, as (I think) Dondi is also saying.

Transcendent as far as the human paradigm of good and evil. Although I am still pondering what God meant in Genesis 3:22, "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

Evidently, God knows good and evil, but in what manner? Was there a process of evaluation with God? What then would be the criteria? What is the difference between God and man in this regard?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Transcendent as far as the human paradigm of good and evil. Although I am still pondering what God meant in Genesis 3:22, "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

I think refers to man's taking on of moral autonomy, rather than submitting to the will of God. I'm not sure we can learn more about the nature of God from it, especially if you are saying that God's manner of knowing good and evil is different from our own.

[lunamoth]

Hey dondi...I hit edit instead of quote by mistake...I think I got your post back to it's original form.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I think refers to man's taking on of moral autonomy, rather than submitting to the will of God. I'm not sure we can learn more about the nature of God from it, especially if you are saying that God's manner of knowing good and evil is different from our own.

Perhaps not. But if God knows all, I suppose He knows evil somehow, or at least human nature.