Posted on by Abe Austin

The Problem of Evil- Combinations of Presuppositions

Gaining an Understanding)

In my last post I explained how I never understood the Problem of Evil, which is the common argument that the suffering that we see in the world is logically incompatible with the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent God. So, to comprehend this viewpoint better, I went to some online forums to discuss it with both atheists and Christians who see this argument as credible. It took a fair bit of time, and a lot of back and forth, but finally it made sense to me. I realized that the reason it never resonated with me, but did with others, was because we had a different set of presuppositions that entirely changed the context of how we view reality. Now, I still do not have those presuppositions, so the conclusion that the suffering of this world is incompatible with God still does not resonate with me, but I do understand why it would for others. I understand why it could very well resonate with me if I shared those same presuppositions.

As an aside, I think this is an important lesson in appreciating the different beliefs and struggles of others. Very often the conclusions that others draw seem so strange and incoherent to us, and by focusing on the conclusions, we usually just continue to confuse and frustrate one another. We have to get lower, down to the underlying premises that lead to those conclusions, the fundamental beliefs that make the position become sensible and rational.

But anyway, using the information I gained, I want to spell out exactly what the presuppositions are that would make suffering and God’s goodness hard to hold in the same mind, and in the next post I will show why a different set of presuppositions would not.

The Presuppositions)

The first presupposition we have already identified. It is that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent. He loves His children, He wants goodness and happiness in the world, and He has the power and knowledge to secure it.

But as we will see, this alone is not enough. There is one other necessary presupposition, and it is often overlooked. It is creation ex nihilo, the belief that God created the universe, all of its systems, and the human species, out of nothing. All of our reality is a closed box that God had full control over the designs of. All of the ways that this life is, are because God personally wanted them to be that way.

This second presupposition is key, because without it the obvious counterargument is that yes, God does want goodness and happiness, but in His infinite wisdom He knew that a fulness of joy could only be found in overcoming great trials. He did not only want His children to have peace, He wanted them to be heroes. He wanted them to choose righteousness even when it was hard. He wanted them to be driven by a love that could overcome any adversity.

But for the critic who believes that the existence of God assumes creation ex nihilo, this counterargument holds little weight. The critic can readily agree that yes, humanity seems to be of such a nature that true depth of character is acquired only by suffering. Yes, humanity seems to be of such a nature that greater good is obtained through temporary evil. But then…why is humanity of that nature? If the universe is a closed box that God designed every part of, then why design humanity to operate by those rules? Why not design a humanity that becomes heroic, and loving, and strong by just having nice things happen to them?

A Sensible Question)

With both of these presuppositions: an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent God, combined with creation ex nihilo, I think that critique is very strong. I do not know that I can see any convincing argument against it. I have seen how other Christians try to refute it, and at the end of the day they seem to be trying to pry off one or the other of those presuppositions. And that’s fine if you don’t happen to agree entirely with them, but most of the Christians in these arguments do actually hold both as essential to their faith.

But not every Christian denomination does hold to these presuppositions, and certainly not every non-Christian denomination. There are faiths that are absent one or the other of these claims, including my own, and to us this Problem of Evil loses its power. We will examine that in more depth tomorrow.

Posted on by Abe Austin · 1 Comment

The Problem of Evil- My Confusion

An Old Argument)

The Problem of Evil is a famous argument that the existence of evil causes a logical contradiction with the existence of God. The argument goes all the way back to the Epicurus, the Ancient Greek philosopher, and it goes as follows:

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?

Clearly, this argument is specific to a certain popular conception of God, the “triple-omni” creator who is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. Critics who use this argument often say that it would therefore be possible to accept a God who is missing one of those characteristics, but not a God who has all three. Maybe He really is good but doesn’t have the power to totally eradicate evil? Maybe He really is all-powerful, but He isn’t totally good?

My Confusion)

I wanted to explore this concept more, because frankly this argument has never had any sway over me. People point to the existence of terrible suffering and evil in the world, and how it tries their faith, and I’ve never been able to sympathize with that conundrum. I simply didn’t see why the existence of one the precluded the existence of the other. To me it always felt like there was a premise missing:

Premise #1: God is all-powerful, all-caring, and all-good.
Premise #2: There is suffering in the world, including of innocent people.
Premise #3: ???
Conclusion: Therefore, premise number 1 and 2 are in contradiction. The existence of premise #2 is plainly observable, so premise #1 must be the falsehood.

Obviously, I can understand that because God is powerful and good people want the evidence of that to be a perfect, peaceful world…but isn’t that what He created? That describes the Garden of Eden exactly. He really did make a perfect world, and it was only when His children performed evil therein did it transform into a fallen world. It didn’t fall because God didn’t have the power to keep it there. It fell because He willingly handed the creation to man to “have dominion” over it, and man caused the fall. This was a choice, not a lack of power.

And now, one might say, since man did take that perfect creation and corrupt it, and now there is suffering, why wouldn’t a powerful and loving God save and redeem it? But once again…isn’t that exactly what He is doing? Isn’t the message of the gospel, that He sent His son to die for the sins of the world, unlocking the capacity to restore paradise from within our hearts, reclaiming us, one soul at a time? And obviously some may prefer that He would redeem it more immediately, not by this slow, gradual process, but I think we see in the story of Noah how that would not be an act of kindness. God did stamp out all evil on a large scale once before, and hardly anyone was able to survive it. Is that really the more immediate method that we would like Him to use on us today? It seems clear that the slow, deliberate method of winning souls is due to God’s mercy towards us, not due to a limitation of His power.

Learning From Others)

However, this Problem of Evil argument still bears real sway over many people in our society, atheists and Christians alike, and I decided I wanted to understand it better. I wanted to see if there was something that I was missing. A piece of the logical formula that I hadn’t appreciated before. So, I created a few posts online, both directed towards believers who struggle with this conundrum, and atheists who subscribe to it. I explained my inability to understand the validity of the argument and asked them to enlighten me.

I evaluated the logic of what they said and pushed back in many cases, because most arguments amounted to little more than an emotional desire for peace today. That is a totally understandable feeling, but hardly a logical contradiction of God.

To my delight, though, I was able to find some commentators who gradually led me to understand what I was missing. It took a bit, because these commentators had presumptions they didn’t even recognize, which were presumptions I didn’t even have. Recognizing what these were, and how if I did have those same presumptions, it would similarly test my faith, I finally felt like I understood the argument. I still didn’t agree with it personally, but I saw the valid points that it raised. In my next post I will explain what these critical presumptions are, and why they don’t apply to me.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Judgmental

I grew up in a generation where accusing Christians of being judgmental reached its peak. It got to the point that even asserting the mere existence of divine truth was seen as exclusionary and hateful, and for a long while now, any mention of commandments and sin has been called judgmental. This mentality prevailed in the culture war and became assumed correct as a general rule, but we have since seen that those so concerned about Christian judgmentalism are themselves more judgmental than anyone else. The difference is that they secularize the religious terminology, but that doesn’t change that it is judgmentalism even so.

They don’t call it “righteous,” they call it “being right.”
They don’t call it “being a sinner,” they call it “being on the wrong side of history.”
They don’t call it “orthodoxy,” they call it “being informed.”
They don’t call it “repentance,” they call it “taking accountability.”
They don’t call it “heresy,” they call it “misinformation.”
They don’t call it “excommunication,” they call it “cancellation.”
They don’t call it “doctrine,” they call it “values.”
They don’t call it “blasphemy,” they call it “hate speech.”
They don’t call it “commandments,” they call it “policies.”
They don’t call it “words of scripture,” they call it “experts say.”
They don’t call it “moral law,” they call it “social contract.”
They don’t call it “confession,” they call it a “public statement.”
They don’t call it “church,” they call it “community.”

Fancy terminology aside, we see a society that believes more than ever that there are commandments and laws, and that those who stand against them are morally wrong, and they absolutely condemn those who don’t fall in line.

Indeed, the severity of that condemnation is the most shocking aspect of all. People are absolutely obsessed with being right, with winning debates, with finding surveys and studies that side with them, with proving other people wrong. People absolutely hate people that don’t share their views, and they are very open about it. They are so anxious to be surrounded with “rightness” they will cut off their own immediate family for daring to have “wrong opinions.” They will tell them to “f–k off” and never speak to them again….

But they will still be scandalized that you hold a faith that is so “judgmental.”

Posted on by Abe Austin

You Do Not Understand Others

If you cannot fathom or see the sensibility in the beliefs of another, then the failure is almost certainly in your understanding, not in their intelligence or reason. More often than not, people have logical and coherent reasons for believing what they believe. More often than not, your difference in view simply comes down to them having underlying presumptions that are different from your own. But if you did share their presumptions, more often than not you might very well come to the same conclusions as them.

It is maturity to seek first what those presumptions are, to see the reason and logic that follows from them, and to appreciate that your brother or sister is an intelligent being trying to do their best with what they have, just like you.

Furthermore, in many cases those presumptions are both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Thus, your brother or sister may indeed be wrong, and the conclusions drawn from them wrong as well, but you’ll never be able to demonstrate it by logical argument.

Most arguments around differences in belief are therefore a complete waste of energy. Most debaters will never extend the grace of acknowledging the reasonability in other’s conclusions given their background, nor address the actual presumptions on which everything depends. Instead, people tend to argue on a surface layer for positions that the other cannot accept, and no meaningful change occurs.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 15:28-33

28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.

29 And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

30 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the Lord for the issue of her uncleanness.

31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.

32 This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed goeth from him, and is defiled therewith;

33 And of her that is sick of her flowers, and of him that hath an issue, of the man, and of the woman, and of him that lieth with her that is unclean.

Today concludes the case of women who have special conditions that cause perpetual bleeding outside of their regular menstrual cycles. After they were recovered, they would undergo the same ritual that was used for the man with a bodily discharge, and the second half of the rituals for a leper. Seven days of waiting, then on the eighth day taking two birds for a sin and a burnt offering. As mentioned before, this pattern matches that done for a newborn, signifying a rebirth into society.

This brings us to the end of the laws and rituals that govern ritual uncleanness and the return from that state. As we have observed multiple times, uncleanness did not mean sinful. Certainly, one could be unclean and sinful, but the former did not in-and-of-itself imply the latter. Being unclean was unfortunate and to some degree unavoidable. That being said, it was also a fact that those who engaged in unclean living were also likely to have some forms of ritual uncleanness more often. The same is true today, and we see how easy it becomes to judge unclean people as having done something wrong.

As with all things, this requires balance and wisdom. There isn’t anything wrong in noticing patterns and governing oneself with care, but at the same time compassion for the afflicted, whether sinful or not, must have its due, too. Especially since, as already mentioned, we all are unclean at some point. And not only innocently unclean either. We will all be in ugly, compromised, unclean states because of our selfishness, our deceit, and our sin. Obviously, that doesn’t lead us to condone it in others, but we should understand and have patience for it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 15:25-27

25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.

26 Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation.

27 And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

Yesterday we discussed the situation of a woman having her period, and the temporary uncleanness brought about by that. But that only covered the common case. There were abnormal cases also. When verse 25 says a woman might have “an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation,” it means she is having a persistent discharge of blood, and it isn’t due to her regular menstrual cycle. These are special medical conditions that we have names for today, such as Chronic Abnormal Uterine Bleeding.

This is exactly the sort of condition that the woman who “had an issue of blood twelve years” must have suffered from. She had been perpetually ritually unclean because of this condition, with all of the social and physical afflictions that would have come with that. Going out in public to touch the hem of Jesus’s garment was quite the bold action, one that could have potentially earned her revulsion and a scolding. But she trusted that it would make her whole and she dearly desired that. She was right, and Jesus was not offended that an unclean woman had touched him. Rather he commended her for her faith and told her to “go in peace.”

Like a man with an irregular discharge from his genitals, the woman with a long-standing issue of blood also required a special ritual at the temple after she became clean. In fact, it was the exact same ritual, and we will hear about it in tomorrow’s verses.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 15:19-24

19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.

20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.

21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.

24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.

Now we shift our attention to a bodily discharge from a woman, as opposed to a man. The most obvious example of this, of course, is when she has her period. This is the situation that today’s verses cover, and we are told that she will be ritually unclean for the duration, and anyone or anything that touches her throughout this duration will need to be washed and then be clean again the next day.

It is important to note that the situation for the woman is the same as for the man. There are those that will take special offense that the Bible talks about a woman’s period as being an “unclean time,” while ignoring the fact that women were not singled out in this regard at all. We have already seen in this chapter that all people were subject to unclean times, and that there was no special shame in that condition. We even discussed yesterday how Jesus, while sinless, most probably was ritually unclean at times himself, and that is the greatest evidence of all that there is no condemnation in it.

But so far, we have talked only about a woman’s regular menstrual cycle. What if she had one of the conditions that made the discharge of blood much more prolonged, such as the woman who touched the hem of Jesus’s robes for healing? We will discuss that matter tomorrow.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 15:16-18

16 And if any man’s seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.

17 And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even.

18 The woman also with whom man shall lie with seed of copulation, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.

Today’s verses are clearly referencing a man’s ejaculate, and the method for cleanliness around it is very simple. Any person or item that makes contact must be washed, and it will be considered clean again at the start of the next day. This notion of tomorrow being a clean new day is one that we still naturally hold in today’s culture. Especially in the modern era where the day changes in the middle of the night, so we go to sleep in the same day as our troubles and then rise reborn in the morning.

For this next bit of commentary, I want to assure you that I am not trying to be crude or sacrilegious in any way, but I find it worth considering that Jesus’s body presumably followed the standard biological functions, which would include the occasional nighttime emission, which would mean that even he would be ritually unclean at certain times. Far from trying to demean him, I think this demonstrates how our modern culture puts far more shame on the Biblical idea of being “unclean” than was ever intended.

Yes, of course, one could be made unclean by personal error, but it would also come by simply living life. It was an inevitable state. Being declared unclean was simply an appropriate recognition of the perpetual fallen state that we all find ourselves in, not in-and-of-itself a consignment of guilt. It was an invitation to consider that that state we live in is lower than God’s, and we should feel humbled by that fact, but not ashamed.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 15:13-15

13 And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean.

14 And on the eighth day he shall take to him two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, and come before the Lord unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and give them unto the priest:

15 And the priest shall offer them, the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord for his issue.

Yesterday I spoke about how society tends to avoid those who have unpleasantness oozing from them, whether it be physical, spiritual, emotional, or social. While we may not necessarily refer to people as “clean” and “unclean,” anymore, our natural instincts to distance ourselves matches the patterns described in the verses of this chapter.

But someone who has an unpleasant quality does not necessarily always remain so. Either the disease leaves his body, or he matures, or he develops his character, and he may become a welcome part of society again. Today’s verses reflect this aspect through the example of a man who has recovered from his symptoms of a sexually transmitted disease. Hopefully the man has not only healed from this one particular instance but has grown wiser and will behave better moving forward. Apparently, God is willing to give the man a second chance, and so, too, should society.

The sin and burnt offerings are standard, and it makes sense that we see them used here to make atonement for the man. What we do not see here is the narrative ritual of the two birds, one being slain and one being freed, such as we saw in the last chapter for leprosy recovery. It goes to show that leprosy was a special category of affliction, and I would argue represented something deeper and more sacred.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 15:8-12

8 And if he that hath the issue spit upon him that is clean; then he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

9 And what saddle soever he rideth upon that hath the issue shall be unclean.

10 And whosoever toucheth any thing that was under him shall be unclean until the even: and he that beareth any of those things shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

11 And whomsoever he toucheth that hath the issue, and hath not rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.

12 And the vessel of earth, that he toucheth which hath the issue, shall be broken: and every vessel of wood shall be rinsed in water.

Today’s verses continue to talk about a man who is unclean from a bodily discharge, most likely as a symptom of a sexually transmitted disease. The verses we have read today emphasize how the man who is unclean also makes that which he touches unclean, and anyone that touches what he has touched is also unclean.

This may seem a harsh rule, one prone to ostracization, but it is also an accurate representation of real-world patterns. It is not only true for physical discharges, either. There is all manner of spiritual, social, and emotional toxicity that we humans spew out, making an unpleasant place for others to reside. Think of someone who is frequently angry, someone who stirs up drama, someone who is constantly immature, someone who repeatedly makes up lies about others, someone who is perpetually narcissistic. It is a natural consequence that people tend to avoid them. This has always been and always will be the pattern of humanity.

This isn’t to say that there should be none willing to take on the burden of associating with such people, but it is appropriate to acknowledge that it really is a burden. A man that has bodily discharges from his sexually transmitted diseases is not a bad metaphor for everyone who regularly spews out any manner of spiritual, social, and emotional “dirtiness.” All that they touch, and all those that get pulled into their web of influence, are made unclean from the association.