Posted on by Abe Austin

The Problem of Evil- Boundaries on God

Getting an Education)

I had long been aware that I felt different from many people, Christians included, in the fact that I did not struggle with the terrible suffering in this world combined with the belief in a powerful and loving God. Frankly, I was glad that I didn’t see a paradox in this and assumed that the paradox wasn’t even real. I assumed that people were distressed by this conundrum for purely emotional reasons, which would certainly be understandable, just not justifiable by logic or reason.

And, as I learned in my study of the matter, that assumption of mine is true for many individuals out there. Many don’t understand the very argument that they use, don’t recognize that it only applies in some contexts and not in others. There are also those who see that the Problem of Evil is only an argument against a very specific conception of God and reality, and I am very grateful to them for expanding my horizons so I could see what that conception was.

Yesterday I shared about faiths that bypass the argument entirely by not holding to the presuppositions that it depends on. Today I wanted to conclude by exploring some of the thoughts that came up when I imagined how it would be to live as one of those Christians to whom those presuppositions do still apply.

What Does All-Powerful Mean?)

At the root of everything, it comes down to just what we mean when we say that God is all-powerful and that He is sovereign over all. In most conversations, I find that even people who believe in the strongest conceptions of God’s power, still assume that to some degree He imposes restrictions upon Himself. They might say that God has the power to slam Jupiter into the Sun, causing a sudden burst of heat and energy that would consume the Earth and eradicate all life in an instant…but He doesn’t, because He is checked by His goodness and compassion. The fact that God does not do something, is not evidence that He cannot do something. It can merely be a sign that His nature bounds itself. God must wield all power, but not at the expense of being all-benevolent.

And then other attributes can be applied to that. Such as logic and truth. These are principles that exist on the same plane of existence as Him, and many Christians would argue are a part of Him, and as such He would operate according to their principles. Just as God would not show His power in a way that contradicts His benevolence, He would not show it in a way that contradicts His logic. If He did, He would be uncoupling His own parts and cease to be Himself.

Thus, could the suffering in this world be a logical necessity, even under the hands of an all-powerful and all-benevolent God?

Is God still all-powerful if that power is bounded by His benevolence and His logic? Is He still all-benevolent if that benevolence is bounded by His justice and His logic?

And if God does need to balance all of these criteria with one another, then perhaps there is space to say that a world of suffering, and a species of man who become heroic by overcoming great opposition, is a logical necessity. In our own lives we know that victory is only a virtue in the face of genuine possible defeat, and maybe that isn’t just an illusion of our reality, but an eternal principle, as true as the principles of mathematics. Perhaps life is the way that it is, because it was the only way that it could be.

This may not answer every concern found in the Problem of Evil, but I think it does open the door to deeper conversation.

In Conclusion)

In my last post I showed how certain faiths do not hold the same presuppositions that the Problem of Evil argument depends on, and which explains why I never found it to be a conundrum. Today I explored the experience of one who did assume those presuppositions, and what arguments could still allow for the existence of both suffering and God.

This brings me to the end of this study, and I have certainly learned a lot through the process. I now understand where the strength of the Problem of Evil argument resides, what presuppositions it depends on, and what my responses to it are, both with and without sharing those presuppositions. It has been helpful for me, and I hope it can be helpful for you, too.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Grit vs Surrender- Liberation vs Burden

Thou Shalt Not)

There are many that say the restrictive aspect of the commandments is made obvious by how many of them start with the words, “thou shalt not.” How can anyone dispute that God is trying to oppress us, given how He prohibits us from doing things? It seems from this view that a truly permissive and liberating set of commandments would be ones that started with “thou shalt.” But is that true?

Just looking at the two phrases at their most fundamental level, “thou shalt” is a call to action and “thou shalt not” is a call to inaction. “Thou shalt” requires doing, “thou shalt not” simply requires being. “Thou shalt” is effortful, “thou shalt not” is restful.

Even when we consider historical examples of inappropriate “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots,” it is times when people were compelled to act against their will that seem even more oppressive than times when people were restricted from their will.

Or consider these thought experiments, would it be more perverse for me to require you to not have sex with someone that you want to, or to require you to have sex with someone that you do not want to? To not be allowed to speak a truth, or to be compelled to spread a lie? To refrain from punishing a person that you see as guilty, or to hurt a person that you see as innocent?

In short, it is strange to see people rankle under the term “thou shalt not,” when clearly its opposite has far more potential to be oppressive.

The True Taskmasters)

Of course, one might say the thought experiments I provided were poor examples, because they all involved being compelled to do or not do things against our desires. The problem with the commandments is that they hold us back from the things that we want to do, while a life of fun invites us to do them.

To that, I say, you haven’t yet seen just how dark “fun” can be.

That which we call “fun” is nothing more than indulging our appetites. Our appetites for food, for sex, for attention, for endorphins. And anyone with experience and perception will soon find out that appetites are the true slavemasters of all mankind. It is a mark of immaturity to still think that feeding the appetite is harmless fun. It is a mark of wisdom to know that what is once given to the appetite by choice, is soon taken by force. Ever notice that all of the twelve step programs are for people who became slaves to the “fun” things?

Just ask any world-weathered soul what it’s like to go on a bender and be made useless when everyone needed you most, or to sleep with someone you don’t even know because it’s the closest you can get to feeling loved, or to take drugs just to feel again.

These aren’t the actions of people doing what they want to do. These are the actions of people who are actually being oppressed, people being pulled by the “thou shalts” of a cruel and demanding taskmaster. Their appetites are their god, and that god makes them do things that they don’t want to do. They don’t like the music that is playing anymore, but their feet keep dancing to the tune. “I don’t want to do this anymore!” they cry out, but the chant continues, “Thou shalt! Thou shalt! Thou shalt!”

For people in such dire straits, there is no message more merciful than a God who would finally stop that dance. A God who would have the kindness, the leniency, and the liberality to finally give them “thou shalt not.”

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 35:1-3

1 And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the Lord hath commanded, that ye should do them.

2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

3 Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.

These first three verses are a continuation of God’s laws being extended anew to Israel. God had repeated the sabbath day commandment to Moses in the mountain, and now Moses repeated it to the people.

Interestingly, this description of the commandment contains a detail that we haven’t seen before: that the Israelites are not to light a fire on the sabbath day. Other scholars have noted that while this requirement was not explicit in our previous records, it was implied by Exodus 16:23’s instruction that the people cook their double-portion of manna on the day prior and use the extra for the sabbath.

We have already discussed how the sabbath day commandments prohibit the performance of “work” in terms of pursuing one’s livelihood, but this extra restriction seems to suggest that even household labor, such as cooking, was meant to be avoided. One has to wonder just how far this expectation extended. Would a person really be expected to go through the day without performing a single household chore? Not even to pick something up off the floor and put it away? Or was this restriction only meant to apply to more strenuous activity, since lighting a fire was much more difficult then than today’s turning a knob on today’s appliances?

Suffice it to say that there are opinions and interpretations up and down the spectrum on this matter. The fact is, it seems doubtful that we have anywhere in the Old Testament the full transcript of the Lord’s commands, nor the commentary of the day that would explain whether these were eternal laws or contextual ones only. Moses was in the mountain for a full forty days, so there is definitely room for him to have received much more exhaustive detail than what we have today. Today we must depend on our own conscience, good intentions, and any divine whisperings to decide what specifications still apply to us in our age.