Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Because God is *not* omnipotent.

    More on this later, but I disagree with .1 
    
    DR

    I agree with Nancy, and with process theology, that God is not omnipotent.
    
    -- Mike

    
    OK, I'll break up the party  :)
    
    Why does man allow evil to exist? It seems that regardless of why God
    allows, it, man chooses it. Perhaps it is allowed to test the faith of
    God's people as in Job.
    
    Innocent people. This is an oxymoron. In any case I assume it is to
    test, as with fire.
    
    Jamey

    People allow evil to exist because people are both imperfect and sinful.  
    It's that simple.  (It doesn't even require a devil.)  And God allows
    people to allow evil because God made us with free will.

>    It's that simple.  (It doesn't even require a devil.)
    
    Nancy!
    
    Isn't unemployment bad enough without eliminating Satan
    as so much expendible indirect labor?
    
    ;-}
    Richard

    re:  .6 expendible indirect labor
    
    What was that about idle hands? 
    
    DR

    I believe God is omnipotent, but not in the usual sense of the word.
    
    I find I am at a loss to explain it further.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    There's a story about a Chinese farmer who lost one of his prize
    stallions.
    
    And his friends said, "That's bad!"
    
    The farmer said, "Who knows what's good or bad?"
    
    The next day the stallion returned to the farm with three mares.
    
    And his friends said, "That's good!"
    
    The farmer said, "Who knows what's good or bad?"
    
    The following day, the farmer's son broke his leg trying to train one
    of the new mares.
    
    And his friends said, "That's bad!"
    
    The farmer said, "Who knows what's good or bad?"
    
    The following day, the soldiers of the local war-lord came to impress
    the sons of the populace into service.  However, they passed by the
    farmer's son, because he had a broken leg.
    
    And his friends said, "That's good!"
    
    The farmer said, "Who knows what's good or bad?"
    
    Do YOU know what's good or bad?
    
    DR

    St. Francis, in his famous prayer seeking to sow love where there is
    hatred, etc, described a process I've heard called transmutation.  When
    we encounter what we call evil, the option is always available to
    transmute that energy to be used for one's own purposes.  If your
    purpose is holy, the power of evil will be turned to your and others'
    benefit.
    
    DR

See 6.54 and/or 21.17 for prayer of St. Francis.

    
    *all* things work toward the good of a righteous man. 
    				- Bible (somewhere I can't remember)
    
    Jamey

    Re.4
    
    Jamey:
              People allow evil to exist because they are stupid.
        Fortunately, this can be corrected.
    
             Why does God need to test people if God is omniscient ?
    
             Why would God judge people for their "sinful nature", 
            when God is responsible for creating people with that
            nature to begin with ?
    
            You do believe that God knew this in advance, don't you ?
    
            God is omnipotent and omniscient, right?
    
    
                                                       Mike
    
              
                                                       
    

re Note 55.13 by SA1794::SEABURYM:

>              Why does God need to test people if God is omniscient ?

        It certainly would be an obscure meaning for the word "test",
        but "test" can mean "refine" or "purify" (as in the refining
        of metals).  It does not always mean "to discover the
        qualities of something" -- granted, an omniscient God
        wouldn't need "testing" to add to God's own knowledge.

        Bob

    
    Re Mike, .13
    
    >   People allow evil to exist because they are stupid.
    	Yes. By nature.
        
    >   Fortunately, this can be corrected.
    	Yes. By believing upon Jesus to do so.
    
    >   Why does God need to test people if God is omniscient ?
    	To Purify the sinful nature out of creation.
    
    >	Why would God judge people for their "sinful nature",
    >   when God is responsible for creating people with that
    >   nature to begin with ?
    
    	No. Man chose evil in direct disobedience to God, forever altering
    the very nature of man. This has been passed on ever since. God made
    man perfect in his own image, man chose to alter that image. God then
    chose to give man a second chance. The sacrafice of a perfect man made
    atonement for the race (corporate guilt, corporate atonement). The
    nature is now in process of being restored. Isn't it obvious ;)
    
    
    > You do believe that God knew this in advance, don't you ?
    Yes, and he was prepared to court his people back to him. Don't you
    know that your children will get in trouble in advance.
    
    >God is omnipotent and omniscient, right?
    I guess so, I have never spent a lot of time on these two concepts.
    
    
    Jamey                                                                        

    Leibniz's explanation for the problem of evil, if I am not mistaken,
    was to argue that the universe as it exists is the best of all possible
    worlds.  However, process theology offers a different answer to this
    question.  First of all, process theology denies that God is
    omnipotent.  Therefore, as Cobb and Griffin put it, "the power of God
    is persuasive, not controlling.  Finite actualities can fail to conform
    to the divine aims for them."  This means that the *possibility* of
    evil is necessary, even if evil itself is not.

    In their book _Process Theology:  an Introductory Exposition_, Cobb and
    Griffin develop a second, more elaborate argument for the existence of
    evil.  Process theology argues that the one intrinsic good is the
    maximization of enjoyment for all occasions of experience.  In
    contrast, this philosophy sees two kinds of experience that are evil: 
    triviality and discord.  Discord is physical and mental suffering--and
    it is inherently and *absolutely* evil.  Triviality, on the other hand,
    is only *relatively* evil.  Triviality is evil when it is unnecessary,
    when the enjoyment of experience (which is the one intrinsic good) is
    less than it should have been.

    God, as a morally good being, seeks to maximize enjoyment, and to
    minimize both forms of evil--both discord and unnecessary triviality. 
    Focusing on physical and mental suffering stresses the evil of discord
    while ignoring the other evil, triviality.  However, if avoidance of
    discord were the only criterion of moral perfection, then God would not
    have even bothered to create the world at all--because empty space
    would have very little if any discord.  Unfortunately, empty space
    would also be extremely trivial.  "Hence," argue Cobb and Griffin, "if
    the sole concern were with avoiding as much suffering as possible, an
    everlasting chaos would be the solution."  But moral goodness should be
    defined in positive, rather than negative, terms.  God, as the ultimate
    good, promotes worthwhile experience "to the quantitatively and
    qualitatively greatest possible extent."

        Accordingly, God's loving purpose must not be thought of as merely
        the avoidance of discord.  To have left the finite realm in chaos,
        when it could have been stimulated to become a world, would have
        been to acquiesce in unnecessary triviality.  To be loving or
        moral, God's aim must be to overcome unnecessary triviality while
        avoiding as much discord as possible.  In other words, the aim is
        for the perfection of experience.  Perfection is the maximal
        harmonious intensity that is possible for a creature, given its
        context.  The more variety and hence intensity there is, the
        greater the possibilities for disharmony.  But this is a necessary
        risk, if there is to be a chance for the perfection of experience to
        be attained.  In Whitehead's words, the evil of discord "is the
        half-way house between perfection and triviality."

    The final argument that Cobb and Griffin develop are based on the fact
    that process theology denies the doctrine of creation ex nihilo.  They
    argue that there are necessary principles governing the mutual
    relations between finite entities, which are *not* contingent.  This
    view is in contrast to classical theism, which "denied that there are
    any necessary because uncreated principles governing the interrelations
    among worldly actualities, and hence God's relations with them, other
    than strictly logical principles."  Process theology argues that the
    existence of the the finite realm is as eternal and necessary as God's
    existence, and therefore there are eternally necessary principles that
    govern their relation.

    Cobb and Griffin identify five dimensions of experience that
    necessarily correlate:

        (1) the capacity for intrinsic good; (2) the capacity for intrinsic
        evil; (3) the capacity for instrumental good; (4) the capacity for
        instrumental evil; (5) the power of self-determination.  The
        correlation among these dimensions of experience is positive,
        meaning that if any one of them increases, the others also
        proportionally increase.

    Cobb and Griffin discuss this correlation between the first four of
    these in great detail, which I won't repeat here.  Much of the
    correlation has to do with the balance between avoiding discord and
    avoiding triviality inherent in the relationship between each.  "We can
    see that the development of beings with the capacity to enjoy
    significant values, and to contribute significant values to those
    beyond themselves, necessarily meant the development of beings with the
    capacity to undergo significant suffering, and to contribute
    significantly to the suffering of others beyond themselves.  The good
    cannot be had without the possibility of the bad.  To escape triviality
    necessarily means to risk discord."

    The fifth dimension of experience, self-determination, correlates with
    the first four.  This is because the increase in the capacity for
    enjoyment correlates with an increase in freedom.  "Accordingly, God's
    stimulation of a more and more complex world, which has the capacity for
    more and more intrinsic value, means the development of creatures with
    more and more freedom to reject the divine aims."  What is important
    here is that while this argument resembles the "free will" argument of
    classical theism, it differs in an important way:

        Many theologians and philosophers of religion have proposed a
        "free-will defense" of God's goodness.  The central claim made is
        that moral evil (which as an evil intention is itself evil, and
        which in its consequences is the cause of most of the suffering in
        our world) occurs, because God--even though he is all-good and
        all-powerful--out of goodness decided to give freedom to human
        beings.  The rationale is that, since freedom is such a great good,
        God voluntarily gave up all-controlling power, in order to allow us
        to have genuine freedom and the other values that presuppose it. 
        But there is a serious objection to this theodicy.  It takes the
        form of doubt that freedom is really such an inherently great thing
        that it is worthy running the risk of creatures such as Hitler.  If
        it were possible to have creatures who could enjoy all the same
        values which we human beings enjoy, except that they would not
        really be free, should God not have brought into existence such
        creatures instead?  In other words, if God could have created
        beings who were like us in every way, except that (a) they always
        did the best thing, and (b) they *thought* they were only doing
        this freely, should God not have created these beings instead?

        This argument seems convincing, given its premises.  But process
        theology rejects its premises.  Since the correlation discussed
        above are necessary, the hypothetical case is impossible.  There
        could not be beings who would be like us in all respects--i.e.,
        who could enjoy the kinds of values we enjoy, but who would not
        really be free.  Hence, God did not bring about creatures such as
        us, with our great capacity for discordant self-determination and
        destructive instrumental value, simply because freedom is in itself
        a great value, but because beings capable of the values we enjoy
        must necessarily have these other capacities.  The question as to
        why God did not make sinless robots does not arise.  God is partly
        responsible for most of what we normally call evil, i.e., the evil
        of discord.  Had God not led the realm of finitude out of chaos
        into a cosmos that includes life, nothing worthy of the term
        "suffering" would occur.  Had God not lured the world on to the
        creation of beings with the capacity for conscious, rational
        self-determination, the distinctively human forms of evil on our
        planet would not occur.  Hence, God is responsible for these evils
        in the sense of having encouraged the world in the direction that
        made evils possible.  But unnecessary triviality is also evil,
        since it also detracts from the maximization of enjoyment.  Hence
        the question as to whether God is indictable for the world's evil
        reduces to the question as to whether the positive values enjoyed
        by the higher forms of actuality are worth the risk of the negative
        values, the sufferings.

    The distinction between the process approach to theodicy and that of
    the "free will" argument is subtle but important.  I have always had a
    problem with the traditional "free will" argument because the
    unwilling victims of evil were hardly exercising any free will in the
    matter.  The six million Jews who were killed by the Nazis, for
    example, did not freely choose to be gassed, tortured, or otherwise
    slaughtered.  One reason I am attracted to process theology is that I
    believe it addresses the problem of theodicy from a different approach
    that I find satisfactory, and thus provides an alternative explanation
    for the existence of evil.  Of course, subscribing to this view
    requires rejecting certain traditional views of classical theism, such
    as the doctrine of divine omnipotence; however, I personally don't
    have a problem with that.

    I suspect that Leibniz's theodicy necessarily derived from his
    cosmology.  His concept of "monads" resembled Whitehead's occasions of
    experience.  However, Leibniz believed that monads were windowless
    with respect to one another, but not with respect to God.  Thus they
    were contingent and dependent upon God to relate to one another. In
    _Adventures of Ideas_, Whitehead objects to that, arguing, "But no
    reason can be given why the supreme monad, God, is exempted from the
    common fate of isolation.  Monads, according to this doctrine, are
    windowless for each other.  Why have they windows towards God, and Why
    has God windows towards them?"

    Since process thought rejects the doctrines of omnipotent and creation
    ex nihilo, the "best of all possible worlds" theodicy of Leibniz no
    longer follows.  Whitehead points out that the "Leibnizian doctrine of
    Law by pre-established harmony is an extreme example of the doctrine of
    imposition", which is based on Leibniz's view that monads cannot affect
    one another creatively.

    In Griffin's book _God & Religion in the Postmodern World_, there is
    considerable discussion of process thought's panentheism.  Griffin
    quotes John Cobb as arguing that

        the *ultimate reality*, which is called creativity by Whitehead, is
        similar to that which is called Being by Heidegger, Emptiness
        by Buddhists, and Nirguna Brahaman by Vendatists.  God, who is
        the source of all physical, aesthetic, and ethical principles, is
        the *ultimate actuality*.  Whitehead differs from Advaita
        Vedantists and most Buddhists by not making this source of forms or
        principles subordinate to the ultimate reality.  The ultimate
        reality and the ultimate actuality are equally primordial.  God
        does not create creativity, but neither does creativity generate
        God.  Each equally presupposes the other.  Creativity that is
        uninfluenced by God's persuasion toward ordered beauty therefore
        never occurs.  Nor could God exist alone as the only embodiment of
        creativity, the sole possessor of power.

    This is an important passage, and Griffin elaborates on it, leading to
    the conclusion that "the notion of creation ex nihilo is
    self-contradictory".  Rejecting the doctrine of omnipotence, Griffin
    thus argues that

        because each actual occasion is affected by the creative influence
        of all previous occasions and also has its own inherent power of
        self-creation, God can never be the total cause of any event.  God
        is a creative influence on all events, but never the sole creator
        of any, because each is partially created by its past world and by
        itself.  God is uniquely the creator of our world, in that God is
        the one embodiment of creativity who is both everlasting and
        omnipresent.  As such, God is the only enduring being who has
        influenced every event in the world directly.  It is through the
        steady divine persuasion that order has been coaxed out of chaos
        and that the higher forms of existence, which make possible the
        higher forms of value, have come into being.  But God is not and
        could not have been totally responsible for the details of the
        world. 

    Note that this cosmology is also compatible with the modern scientific
    understanding of a universe and a world that has evolved for billions
    of years.  Charles Hartshorne, who along with Whitehead helped to
    define process though, quoted Karl Popper in his book "Omnipotence &
    Other Theological Mistakes", who pointed out that "if God had wanted to
    put everything into the world from the beginning, He would have created
    a universe without change, without organisms and evolution, and without
    man and man's experience of change."  To me, this is a fascinating
    concept, and it makes sense to me given what we know about the
    universe. 

    -- Mike

    Mike .16 & .17,
    
    Thank you for entering such thought-provoking ideas and material.
    Much of it rings true with me.  I am going to print this 
    out so I can read over again and digest it all.
    
    Karen

    Re .17
    
    Thank you for a very lucid summary.  Much of what Griffin says sounds
    very like the free-will defense as given by conventional Christian
    theologians, despite Griffin's repudiation of the doctrine of
    omnipotence.
    
    I wonder, in fact, if everybody agrees on the meaning of "omnipotence."
    Griffin and Hartshorne seem to use it to describe a property I have
    heard called "omnicompetence."  For those who believe in
    omnicompetence, every event is an event God ordains; it is then very
    hard to give meaning to the idea that any created thing is "free."
    Under this terminology, "omnipotence" merely means God can overpower
    any finite agency; He permits all things, but does not necessarily do
    all things.
    
    It may be that God as process theology conceives Him is still
    omnipotent according to some of the less grandiose meanings of
    "omnipotent."
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Earl, I have never heard of "omnicompetence" before, but based on your
    description of it, I don't that process theology accepts that doctrine
    either.  Process theology doesn't believe that anything is "ordained"
    by God; instead, it sees the universe in terms of occasions of
    experience that can undergo a creative transformation of their own. 
    The universe is seen as having its own creativity.  God is seen as a
    persuasive lure, but the occasions of experience are not forced to
    conform to God's will.

    -- Mike

    Re .20
    
    Excuse me, I was unclear.  I too was describing "omnicompetence" as
    something process theology does not believe.
    
    ESW

Re:  .9

God is good.

re:  Note 55.20 by Mike "I noted at Woodstock." 

>   God is seen as a persuasive lure, but the occasions of experience are not 
>   forced to conform to God's will.

Perhaps a strange attractor in a state space?

I've been reading up on chaos theory lately, there might be some interesting 
parallels.  Strange attractors are deterministic, yet generate unpredictable 
results, a possible way of looking at an "omni---ent" deity that allows pain 
and suffering?  Perhaps even reconciling free will with predeterminism?

In the last 50 years or so some amazing revolutionary ideas have been accepted 
in mathematical and scientific circles regarding determinism, indeterminism, 
and the infinitely convoluted boundary between the two.

Hmmm, sorry, don't mine me .-), just some musings, thanks.

Peace,

Jim

    As a supplement to this topic, noters might like to read
    ATSE::Philosophy Topic 180, also on the Problem of Evil.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Jim, those are some interesting ideas.  I think that chaos theory and
    quantum physics have some potentially interesting cosmological
    implications.
    
    -- Mike

    I am inclined to agree with both the process and the creation
    theologians who argue that God both celebrates in our joys and shares
    in our suffering.  And I am also inclined to agree that God does not
    just share in *human* suffering, but in the suffering that is found in
    all of creation.

    A strange thing happened to me yesterday.  I was walking through
    downtown Colorado Springs, when I saw a squirrel flying through the air
    towards the ground just a few feet in front of me.  No, it wasn't
    Bullwinkle's friend Rocky--this was an ordinary squirrel, which
    apparently had lost its footing on an awning and thus slid completely
    off.  I stopped and looked for the squirrel to see what happened to it. 
    I finally was able to located it on the street when I heard it
    squealing, in obvious pain.  It was attempting to walk, but its rear
    legs were obviously broken, and the best it could do was drag itself
    forward with its front legs.

    I know that there are who animals suffer; such is the unfortunate fact
    of nature.  And I have certainly seen plenty of road kill in my life. 
    And yet, watching that poor animal dragging itself along the street
    upset me, a great deal.  And I can't help but think that God was also
    sharing in that animal's suffering.

    -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    God was, and now I am too, with you.
    
    God bless our hearts and especially this precious little 
    one who suffers.  Thanks for sharing the pain...
    
    praying,
    
    Karen   

    re: .4
    
    "Why does man allow evil to exist? It seems that regardless of why
    God allows, it, man chooses it. Perhaps it is allowed to test the
    faith of God's people as in Job."
    
    The sufferings that God allows Satan to visit upon Job were certainly
    not the sort of evil that man allows to exist. The loss to Job of his
    entire family is of a different nature than choice.
    
    The idea of God testing Job's faith is an interesting one. The answer
    that Job receives from the Whirlwind after he has "passed the test"
    is not what I consider a very satisfactory one. 
    
    /peter

    
    Re .28
    
    I am sorry if I was not clear, it happens more often than I care to
    admit. I was not trying to tie the two points together, rather I was
    making two distinct observations:
    
    1) Regardless of why God allows evil, it is man's nature to follow
    evil. History bears this out time and again. 
    
    2) Job identified testing/purifying as the purpose of the evil applied
    to his life. I was not portraying Job as having chosen evil. The
    testing of his people for the purpose of purification is one
    possibility I presented for the allowance of evil. How many really want
    to come out of it. 
    
    I am sorry you don't find the answer Job received satisfactory.
    
    Jamey
    
    

    Is something that we think of as negative, with our limited human
    perception, always "evil"?
    
    I don't think so.  Each situation that we encounter in our lives,
    regardless of the amount of pain involved, is an opportunity for us to
    grow and to connect more closely with the God within.
    
    What do you all think?
    
    Nanci

    Evil is necessary, if we want to appreciate goodness.
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    I dunno.  I don't need pain to appreciate pleasure.  I can appreciate
    goodness for its own sake without contrasting it against evil.  I can
    experience being fully alive without having experienced personal,
    physical death.
    
    'splain further.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Richard .32,
    
    > I dunno.  I don't need pain to appreciate pleasure....
    
    Maybe, but how would you know, unless you've lived a life *without* 
    pain, or evil, or sickness?  Can we really *know* pleasure without 
    *knowing* pain?   Can we even answer a question like this?
    
    I dunno.  I think it's possible, but I sure can't deny the pain I've
    had, nor can I remove myself from the perceptions it has given me. 
    They forever and ever remain a part of me, and every other creature who
    has known pain.   
    
    Karen
    

    thanks for the clarification, Jamey..
    
    I was trying to elucidate the nature of the evil that is characterized
    in the Book of Job.  Certainly, it is not the human kind.  That is,
    the story is not about Job's evil nature since we know right from the
    beginning that Job is a perfect and upright man.  This point is under-
    scored by the Comforters (who get their due in the end) as they attempt
    to cast Job as a sinner.  As you know, Job maintains his innocence and
    continues to question for the reason of his sufferings.
    
    Would you please point me to the passage where "Job indentified
    testing/purification as the purpose of the end applied to his life." ?
    
    If purification was indeed the justication for suffering then why do
    the innocent suffer?  I believe this to be one of the questions that
    the Book of Job tries to address.
    
    /peter

  >...then why do the innocent suffer?

  1)  Who is innocent?

  2)  Innocent suffer because evil men and spiritual beings choose to
      inflict evil on them

  3)  Innocent suffer because we live in a "fallen" world, a world that is
      less than perfect and nature no longer always cooperates in keeping
      the innocent from suffering

Collis

    Karen, (.33)
    
    	I gotta admit that knowing pain is not a bad thing.  It can
    certainly add dimension to one's capacity for empathy and compassion.
    
    	There's a story about the Buddha and sorrow (the woman who was to
    gather rice in a bowl from each home that had known no sorrow) which
    might be appropriate here.  Would you share it with us, Mike Seabury?
    
    	But, I am not convinced of the theodicy that pain exists for
    the purpose of increasing our appreciation of pleasure.  And, the
    same goes for evil existing for the purpose of increasing our
    appreciation of goodness.
    
    	At least, I'm not convinced yet. ;-)
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Richard - 
    
    This isn't Mike's Buddah story but it might add something to this
    discussion of pain vs pleasure...
    
    Suffering 
    
    Suffering teached philosophy on a part-time basis.  She likes the icy
    days in February when she can stay home from school, make thick soups,
    and catch up on her reading.  With her white skin and dark hair she
    even looks like winter.  She has a slender face and dramatic
    cheekbones.
    
    Suffering's reputation troubles her.  Certain people adore her and talk
    about her as if knowing her gives them a special status.  Other people
    despise her; when they see her across the aisle at the supermarket,
    they look the other way.  Even though Suffering is considered a
    formidable instructor, she is usually quite compassionate.  She feels
    lonely around students who dislike her.  It is even more painful to be
    around those who idealize her.  She is proud only because she
    recognizes the value of her lessons.
    
              J. Ruth Gendler
    
    
    (I know you all may be getting tired of these but I think the
    characterization of these human conditions adds a dimension to them
    that enhances my understanding.  I hope you find them useful too.)
    
    Nanci

    I agree Richard (.36),
    
    I am not convinced, nor do I believe, that the purpose of 
    pain or evil is to deepen our appreciation of goodness.  
    
    Karen        

    re. 35
    
   1.  Who is innocent? 
    
     One of the premises of the Book of Job is that Job is innocent of
    any wrongful doings.  The story's "plot" revolves around this, the
    Comforters try and tell Job that he is not innocent but that he must
    have done some wrong even though he is unaware of it, and that this is
    the cause of his suffering.  The writer of the Book of Job is very
    clear about this, Job is a perfect and upright man.
    
    (an aside, Collis, a question in response to a question doesn't
    constitute an answer..so make it 1 question, 2 answers and 1 question)
    
    
   2. The innocent suffer because spiritual beings choose to inflict evil
    upon them.
    
     Yes, that is what is presented in the Book of Job.  God allows Satan
    to visit various afflictions upon Job.  However, one may very well ask
    what is the moral nature of a spiritual being which inflicts evil on
    innocent people?
    
   3. I'm not quite sure how to respond to the third of your answers, I'm
    unsure of the concepts of "fallen" and "nature", how do they fit into
    the discussion of Job's condition.
    
    thanks for your input, Collis
    
    /peter
      

    
    
    re .39
    
    Peter, 
    
    Actually, when it came down to the wire, Job was found guilty of making
    God unrighteous for the purpose of making himself righteous. 
    
    Jamey

    Richard, could you be thinking of the Buddhist parable of the mustard
    seed?
    
    -- Mike

    ah, Jamey, now we come to the dilemma..
    
    first we are told that Job is a perfect and upright man..
    
    then we see that God allows evil to be afflicted upon him, and through
    the explication given in the text of the Book of Job we come to
    understand that this evil is in no way a reflection of Job's moral
    state. That is, Job does not deserve the suffering in any way.
    
    at the end of the story (as you pointed out) we are left with a
    conflict. Either Job is righteous or God is acting unjustly and outside
    of man's moral sphere. The condemnation of Job for coming to this
    conclusion is hardly just. In this God comes off as a bit of a bully,
    and rather autocratic by offering no explanation for his actions.
    
    As I wrote earlier, I don't find the voice from the whirlwind coming
    forth with satifisfactory answers to the questions that Job proposes.
    But then, I tend to view God as a Great Mystery and I don't look for
    absolutist solutions to what I consider profound questions.
    

    
    re: .35 (Collis)
    
    when did nature ever keep the innocent from suffering?
    
    guy

Re:  Who is innocent?

Job *is* innocent in the sense that he did nothing to provoke the attack
upon him and that the attack is unjustified by Satan.

Job *is not* innocent in that he never once sinned against God during
his life.  The justness and uprightness of Job need to be considered in
the context presented.  Since the prevailing belief was that bad things
were a result of sin in the life of the one suffering, it was stressed
that Job did *nothing* to warrant these bad things happening to him (by
the hand of Satan).  It is NOT a claim of sinless perfection on Job's
part.

This, indeed, can be seen when Job's inadequacies are exposed near the
end of the book, as Jamey pointed out.

Collis

  >when did nature ever keep the innocent from suffering?

What innocent?

I responded that "bad" things happen, at times, because of nature.  For
example, someone might get killed in an earthquake.  Or mauled by an
animal.  This is not unusual today or throughout human history.

However, I do not believe that this was the state of things before Adam
sinned.  Man and animals got along fine (as I read the Bible).  Earth
was a friendly place to be.

Collis

    
    Peter,
    
    >ah, Jamey, now we come to the dilemma..
    Let's look at some assumptions made to see if there really is a dilemma
    
    >first we are told that Job is a perfect and upright man..
    Collis adequately addressed this in one of last few replies. He had
    done nothing to deserve his current suffering, yes, but his iniquity
    was mentioned throughout the passage, especially when the light of God
    showed up.
    
    >then we see that God allows evil to be afflicted upon him, and through
    >the explication given in the text of the Book of Job we come to
    >understand that this evil is in no way a reflection of Job's moral
    >state. 
    
    Correct.
    
    >That is, Job does not deserve the suffering in any way.
    The erroneous assumption of Job's 'counselors', that suffering has to
    have some deserving action preceding the suffering. The same can be
    said about blessing. Look at the blessing the average American family
    has compared to the rest of the world. I think it is easy to say that
    we are certainly no more deserving than the rest of the world, yet we
    are blessed. Do either blessing or suffering *have* to be deserved. I
    think the answer from Job is no.
    
    >Either Job is righteous or God is acting unjustly and outside
    >of man's moral sphere. 
    Definitely outside of man's moral sphere. From a humanist perspective,
    God is very unjust, he is not accomodating to man's vision of fairness.
    The alternative is that the evil allowed to test Job's life had nothing
    to do with righteousness or the lack thereof. God, from *His*
    perspective was accomplishing *his* purposes. We can demand, as Job
    did, that he be fair and not cause suffering when we don't think we
    deserve it. Or, we can accept the hand of God and that he is righteous
    and just in all He does and look for what he is teaching us.
    
    I owe you a reference. I don't have it off the top of my head. It is
    something like: I know why this is happening, that in the end I might
    be pure gold. Can anybody help me out on the exact location/quotation.
    Otherwise I will look it up tonight.
    
    >In this God comes off as a bit of a bully,
    >and rather autocratic by offering no explanation for his actions.
    Again, from the human point of view, this is true. Step into God's
    point of view for a moment. When is the last time you were held
    accountable to something that you created. Has your PC ever demanded
    that you give it a faster cycle time or your back porch demanded that
    you keep the direct sun off of it. We can think of God as a bully if we
    want to. Even if he is the worst bully around, He is God, we are not,
    though we keep trying to get him to be like we want him, we will
    eventually figure out that the only way that it works is if he gets us
    to be the way he wants us to be. I.e., who do we think we are in this
    minute bit of history to demand that God of eternity perform for and
    answer to us. I think God is saying that he isn't concerned if you are
    satisfied with his answers. He is asking: 'If I slay you, will you yet
    trust me?' Jesus did.
    
    Jamey
    
    

    re .45
    
    Collis - 
    
    It sounds to me like you're saying that nature is outside of God.  You
    couldn't be saying that really, right?
    
    Nanci

    re. 46
    
    thanks for the reply, jamey...i'll look for the passages myself
    tonight, too.
    
    I think by emphasizing Job's innocence or lack of innocence is missing
    the central meaning of the stuggles of Job.  Here we're merely
    stumbling over the same ground that the Comforters did. The questions
    revolve around the nature of God.
    
    >we can accept the hand of God and that he is righteous and just in all
    He does...
    
    Considering Job's dilemma (yes, I still maintain it's a dilemma)
    then clearly God is not righteous and just in the same manner that
    humankind can be righteous and just.  To my understanding, God cannot
    be judged by our moral code; God is outside of the moral sphere that we
    operate in.  Words such as good, righteous and just while they may be
    used to describe our fellow creatures are not applicable to the Deity.
    
    /peter  

Re:  .47

  >It sounds to me like you're saying that nature is outside of God.  You
  >couldn't be saying that really, right?

What I am saying is that, although God created the world (Gen 1) and
sustains the world (Hebrews 1), he does not actively control everything
that happens in the world.  Free will exists.  The "nature of things"
allows things to happen (such as an apple falling) which God does not
directly cause as in "willing" the event, nor directly prevent.  God
is not "in all things" in the sense that all things are a part of God.
God is seperate from his creation.  God is "in all things" in the sense
that he created all things (and the creator is intimitely tied to his
creation).  Part of the way we know the Creator is by his creation.

Hope this helps.  It is an extremely common Christian understanding of God and
creation.  Nothing radical.

Collis

    
    re .48
    
    Peter,
    
    Yes, God is outside the human moral code. At best it is a subset of
    God's and at worst it is warped by sin. Assuming the fallen nature of
    man, outside of a human definition, we do not know justice.... yet.
    
    Jamey

    
    re: .45 (Collis)
    
    Since man and animals are said to have "gotten along fine" before
    the fall, does that mean that they only suddenly started eating
    each other after the fall?
    
    Did they eat before the fall? (man or animals)
    
    What did they eat?  
    
    guy

    Collis - 
    
    I guess this is where we have to agree to disagree.  I don't think God
    exists outside of His creation.  We may exist outside of God if we so
    choose but that's a matter of choice, ours, not God's.  Therefore, to
    me, God controls nature as well, by the natural laws He set up or by
    Divine Interference, if you will (sorry, I couldn't think of a better
    word than that).  :-)
    
    Nanci 

    Re.36
    
    Richard:
        
          Hey I'd love to share the story with you. Unfortunately,
    I've never heard it. 
          From the Buddhist point of view suffering just is. It's an unavoidable
    fact of life. So you have to decide what to do about it. Avoid it or
    confront it. 
           You may argue that is good or bad or if it helps define pleasure
    by being it's opposite, but those are ultimately pointless. It eventually
    come back to what to do about it.
    
                                                       Mike

    re.50
    
     Jamey:
      
           There is always the possibility that God's the one the 
        warped moral code.
           Humans do understand justice, some of us just do not
        believe anything is permitted as long a as you are God.
           I'd kinda like my divine beings to someone I can look
        up to, not have to make excuses for.
    
                                                       Mike 

   
    
    Re: .31, Mike,                       

   > Evil is necessary, if we want to appreciate goodness.
    
    The fallacy here is:  *how much* evil is *necessary* to appreciate
    goodness?  One broken leg?  One baby with birth defects?  The
    Holocaust?
    
    Sorry, your statement does not answer the dilemma!
    
    *I can* appreciate love without knowing hate or indifference.
    *I can* appreciate a good meal without knowing starvation.
    *I can* appreciate a sunset or other beautiful sight without seeing filth
    and ugliness.
    *I can* appreciate water without knowing the desert.
    
    Experiencing evil makes me glad to be *not experiencing* evil, but evil
    does not create the capacity to appreciate goodness.
    
    Evil exists because (1) God is *not* omnipotent (2) Humans have free
    will.
    
    Nancy

    
    Re.55
    
        Can God not be omnipotent and be God ?
    
    
                                                      Mike

    Mike,
    
    Absolutely!  As I mentioned earlier in this topic, and also in topic 
    13, process theology, for one, believes that God is not omnipotent. 
    Charles Hartshorne, a leading proponent of process theology, has even
    written a book with the title "Omnipotence and Other Theological
    Mistakes".
    
    -- Mike

    re: .56
    
    Mike,
    
    Definitely!!  
    
    (Do not assume that because God is not omnipotent that that means there 
    is some other being who is *more* powerful than God.  That does not
    necessarily follow!)
    
    Nancy

    re last few
    
    I believe God is omnipotent as best we can understand this quality; 
    for without God we would not exist, nothing would exist, (but even 
    that statement implies "something" would exist :-))
    
    The problem comes in because our _rational_ minds are hopelessly unable
    to comprehend the true nature of God.  We look around and see pain and
    despair, beauty and joy in this world and we ask ourselves "why?", why
    do these things exist? (especially pain)  One of the answers the
    rational mind can create is that God is _not_ omnipotent.  
    
    But I tell you ime (in my experience) this is not true.  
    
    Human beings, first and foremost, are meaning-making organisms;  that
    is to say that the activity of being a human is the activity of
    meaning-making.  Every thing that happens to us, we are compelled to
    compose or organize meaning from.  Yet who/what/shy God is is far 
    beyond our the ability of our purely rational mind to make meaning of.  
    
    Because God exists within yet beyond the rational mind, we will
    _never_ arrive at a neatly worded answer to define God's nature and 
    why He/She allows thus-and-such to exist.  But we are inherently 
    compelled to try anyway.  We cannot help ourselves, it is our nature 
    to compose and organize meaning.  The rational mind is a tool to help
    us accomplish that, but it's primary scope of influence rests within
    the 3 dimensional world.  We exist and God exists beyond this.  But
    that's another subject.
    
    The key lies in integration of all experiences of life - integration
    sans the judgements, sans the dualistic (either/or) thinking.  This 
    can not to be accomplished solely by the rational mind, one has to 
    expand beyond the boundaries of the rational mind to another level 
    of consciousness.  What and where that is I do not have the words to
    explain.  You'll know it when you're though - for all of a sudden 
    _everything_ makes perfect sense.  
    
    Karen
      

re Note 55.54 by SA1794::SEABURYM:

>            There is always the possibility that God's the one the 
>         warped moral code.
>            Humans do understand justice, some of us just do not
>         believe anything is permitted as long a as you are God.
>            I'd kinda like my divine beings to someone I can look
>         up to, not have to make excuses for.
  
        The problem I have with this is, do you have a choice?

        If God is whom most monotheists believe God is, then God's
        definition of justice is what ultimately prevails.

        If we think that God's justice is warped, then we have a
        number of options.  We can ignore it, and define a god of our
        own to our liking.  We can try to understand God's justice
        better -- through prayer, study, etc.  We might also have to
        accept that a true God would, ultimately, have logic and
        wisdom and knowledge vastly beyond our own -- and thus we
        might not be able even in principle to understand God's
        justice.  Or we might conclude that human logic and wisdom
        and knowledge are sufficient to comprehend all.

        (I tend to think that the latter is an unlikely bet.)

        Bob

    
    
    re .54,
    
    Mike,
    
    God, by definition, cannot have a warped moral code. He wrote it. The
    fact that we might not agree or think our code better really has no
    bearing. This is the fallacy that one's mind is superior to God. 
    
    The fact that you do not think that God has sovereign rule over his
    creation does not change the fact that He does. If humans had any
    concept of justice, they would all be on their faces in repentence
    before God, pleading for their lives. If you build a sandcastle, can't
    you destroy it if it pleases you to do so. Would you allow your little
    castle to tell you what is permitted.
    
    I have lots of things I would like from a diving being, too.
    Fortunately God has a much better plan. No excuses, just trust.
    
    Jamey
    
    

    I disagree with the notion that morality is contingent.
    
    -- Mike

    I looked it up last night, and I am pretty sure that the Buddhist
    parable that Richard was referring to was the parable of the mustard
    seed.
    
    In the parable, a distraught and grief-stricken woman named Krisha
    Gautami comes to the Buddha, carrying a tiny child.  It seems that her
    son would not move or breathe, and she had been to everyone for help,
    but to no avail.  Perhaps, she asked the Buddha, he could help?

    The Buddha responded that he could help her, but first he would need
    from her a mustard seed.  However, the mustard seed must come from
    a house where no one has died.

    The woman was ecstatic, and ran for joy to the village and went from
    house to house, asking for a mustard seed.  But at every house she
    visited, that simple condition could not be met.  Every family had
    experienced death.

    Finally, she understood.  She cremated her child and returned to the
    Buddha, telling him that she had had enough of the mustard seed, and
    asking him if she could be a disciple.  The Buddha then recited to her
    some stanzas, including the following that are found within chapter 20
    of the Dhammapada:

        Death comes and carries off a man absorbed in his family and
        possessions as the monsoon flood sweeps away a sleeping village.

    So ends the parable of the mustard seed.

    By the way, earlier in the same chapter of the Dhammapada, there is a
    line that reads:

        All created beings are involved in sorrow; those who realize this
        are freed from suffering.  This is the path that leads to pure
        wisdom.

    I believe that is basically a restatement of one of the Four Noble
    Truths.  Does this view have a place within Christian spirituality?
    
    -- Mike

re Note 55.64 by CSC32::M_VALENZA:

>         All created beings are involved in sorrow; those who realize this
>         are freed from suffering.  This is the path that leads to pure
>         wisdom.
> 
>     I believe that is basically a restatement of one of the Four Noble
>     Truths.  Does this view have a place within Christian spirituality?
  
        I would think so.

        (I might qualify by saying that I don't think that merely
        realizing "all created beings are involved in sorrow" by
        itself leads to all wisdom, it certainly is an important
        element of wisdom!)

        Bob

>    The Buddha responded that he could help her, but first he would need
>    from her a mustard seed.  However, the mustard seed must come from
>    a house where no one has died.

This is the one.  Except, I heard it as "a bowl of rice, gathering each
grain from a house that has known no sorrow."

>    I believe that is basically a restatement of one of the Four Noble
>    Truths.  Does this view have a place within Christian spirituality?
    
Well, to me, it demonstrates the universality of the need for understanding,
empathy and compassion.  This story brings a deeper understanding of grief,
of pain, and even injustice, than simply saying these things exist so that
we may appreciate goodness.

Thanks for that, Mike!

Richard

Man was a vegetarian in the garden.  (Plenty of apple trees :-) )

I believe it is Genesis 9 where God provides for the eating of meat.

Collis

    
    re: .67 (Collis)
    
    What did the animals eat?
    
    Also, about eating plants - isn't that murder?
    
    guy

    Re.62
    
        That you believe God has control over creation does not
     make it make it a fact.
    
                                                      Mike

    
     Re. The Buddha parable and the four noble truths and all that stuff.
    
        As I understand it, the significance of suffering as a universal
     given in Buddhist thought is that it puts you in the Buddha's shoes...
     er.. make that sandals, no wait he went barefoot.. make that the
     Buddha's place. The point of departure towards the Buddha's 
     enlightenment so to speak. It gets you into the the starting blocks.
        If and when you come to the same realization that the Buddha did
     then the rest of the Buddha's teachings will make some sense and
     be of some benefit to you.
        To use some Buddhist-speak, you must first realize your Buddha
    nature in order to get going in the "right" direction.
         "Right" as in the "right" in the eightfold path. The problem
    of evil is pretty straight forward from the Buddhist point of view.
    Recognize it and set about eliminating it. 
          None of it will be cut and dried as to how to go about doing
    this. You have to "fly by the seat of your pants" about a lot of
    the specifics. 
    
    
                                                       Mike  
         
        

Note 55.70
 
>          None of it will be cut and dried as to how to go about doing
>    this. You have to "fly by the seat of your pants" about a lot of
>    the specifics. 
    
    
Mike,

	This is not very different from what Christians must do with the
teachings of Jesus.
         
Richard        

Not in my understanding.  Is this your understanding?

Collis

    yo Jamey, are you still there?
    
    I've searched the Book of Job looking for something like the passages
    that you refered to in .29 ("Job identified testing/purification as
    the purpose of evil applied to his life."). I find nothing that Job
    says that resembles or seems to paraphase this...to me, it seems to
    be something that one of the Comforters might have said (Eliphaz seems
    a likely candidate..but again although I searched the text I don't
    find anything like this...have a look, will you?)
    
    also in .40 you state that "Job was found guilty of making God 
    unrighteous for the purpose of making himself righteous"...found
    guilty by whom? I believe that Elihu makes some statements somewhat
    similiar to this but please keep in mind that God Himself makes it
    very clear in His statements that Job *is* righteous. This point is
    underscored again and again in the Book of Job.
    
    Collis made the statement that "Job *is not* innocent in that he never
    once sinned against God during his life".  From what I read, Job indeed
    did *not* sin against God in his life. Collis, can you provide the
    text from which you have this information?  Ezekiel 14:14 is additional
    Biblical text which supports the Book of Job in regards to the
    character of Job.
    
    Jamey, you also stated that "his (Job's) iniquity was mentioned
    throughout the passage,". Other than statements made by the Comforters
    (please remember what God said about them and what happened to them)
    which claim Job to be sinful, I just don't read anything like this.
    
    Job spends a good deal of time defending his righteousness to the
    Comforters. Job keeps to his faith by doing this, it would be wrong for
    him to say that he was unrighteous when he knew that he wasn't. As I've 
    said before, the issue is not Job's righteousness but rather the
    nature of God.
    
    /peter

Hi, Peter.

I'd rather not get to involved in the discussion of Job, but I made my
comment based not on a direct quote from the book of Job, but rather
based on my understanding of people in general from Scripture (the
broader context).

That all people choose to sin and do this because we have a sinful nature
is well-supported throughout Scripture, although perhaps not explicitly
in the book of Job.

Job does say in Job 40:4, "I am unworthy - how can I reply to you?"  This
could be taken to mean several things.  Certainly in the context it means
that God is the Creator and that Job is simply a creation.  However, it
is not unreasonable to interpret this as Job also admitting that even as
simply a creature, he is unworthy before God [because of his sin].

The points you make are good ones.  Without the context of the rest of
the Bible, I think that the claim that Job was without sin would have
support from Scripture.  Given the greater context, however, this option
does not exist.

Collis

    
    Yo Peter, 
    
    OVER HERE
    
    try Job 23.10 for the testing verse
    
    and 40.8 for the rhetorical question, 'Will you make me a jerk to make
    yourself look good?
    
    I'll get back with references to iniquity.
    
    Jamey

    One book I would very much like to recommend on the problem of evil is
    Richard F. Vieth's book "Holy Power, Human Pain".  The book explores
    the various philosophical and theological approaches to this issue, and
    is probably the best book on the subject I have ever read.

    -- Mike

re: Note 55.76 by Mike "Noting with alms." 

>    One book I would very much like to recommend on the problem of evil is
>    Richard F. Vieth's book "Holy Power, Human Pain".  The book explores
>    the various philosophical and theological approaches to this issue, and
>    is probably the best book on the subject I have ever read.

I'll second that, EXCELLENT book.  It goes well beyond Kushner's fine book.

Jim_who picked up _HP,HP_ � price at a New Age Book Store (shock horror! .-)

    A disturbed man crashes his truck into a building and then proceeds to
    shoot the people there.  22 people die.  The whole incident is
    senseless, tragic, pointless. 

    Can you picture yourself as one of the victims?  Can you imagine what
    it must have been like during those final few seconds, watching others
    being mowed down, seeing that you were likely to suffer a similar fate?
    This was not a war zone; there was no chance for a prolonged
    psychological acclimation to the possibility of violent death.  It came
    out of the blue, a shocking and horrible alteration of expectations,
    which would come to a final completion with your own imminent murder.

    The problem of evil manifests itself in this and many other ways.  We
    can empathize with the victims of tragedy.  Our capacity for empathy is
    part of what makes us human.  It is that capacity that helps us to rise
    above raw individualism.  It gives us the capacity to care, to love our
    neighbors as ourselves.  It forces us to rationalize and invent higher
    justifications for those times when we choose to take human life.  But
    this incident, with its 22 victims--it comes out of nowhere, except
    perhaps the darkness within a disturbed and despairing individual.

    It is from this that we realize that the world is not always defined by
    our higher purposes and justifications.  The world is not fully
    ordered; there is also chaos and disorder, and though the world may
    express an Ultimate order at many levels, not all that we see and
    experience exhibits a meaning or purpose.  Some things can happen to us
    for no justifiable reason.

    Perhaps a goal of the mature religious life might be to recognize and
    to face this aspect of the reality we experience, and to move forward
    with that realization.

    -- Mike

    
    An evil eye can see no good!
    
    
    
    
                              Ray

     SERMON PREACHED BY THE REVEREND ANDREW C. MEAD AT THE CHURCH OF
       THE ADVENT BOSTON ON THE TWENTY-FIRST SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST
                   OCTOBER 16, 1994  PROPER 24  YEAR B

Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise him; he has put him to grief.
							Isaiah 53:4-12

In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.

There is no more serious obstacle to faith in God than the problem of evil,
pain, and suffering.  Yet it is precisely this problem that the Gospel of
Christ addresses first and foremost.  It is strange, when you think about
it, that we Christians do not more regularly and immediately face the
problem of evil, pain, and suffering with the answer that God himself gave
to it, gives to it, and will give to it world without end.  That is, with
the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world.  For God is not
just the creator, he is also the saviour and the sanctifier; we mean this
when we bless God with the names given by Jesus: Blessed be God, Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit.

To believe in the God of Jesus Christ, that is, the God of the Gospel, is
to know that God had taken account of and responsibility for the possibility
and presence of evil, and that he has decisively overcome it.  First of all,
he did this by creating free spirits, angels and men, who must exercise
their free will to be the creatures they are -- reasonable, capable of love,
responsible for their decisions.  He seems to have created freedom because
love requires freedom to exist.  Angels and men must therefore choose to
love, to love God, to love their place in God's world, to love their fellow
citizens in God's world.

God foresaw, before the foundation of the world, what was involved in such
an enterprise, and he did not abandon his creation.  On the contrary, he
involved himself in it, intimately.  He foresaw the devastating possibilities
of the abuse of freedom, both by angels (that is, those who chose to become
demons) and by human beings, all of whom have become sinners.  He not only
provided a way back to grace for us when we have disgraced ourselves, but
he also provided a healing remedy for the disgrace itself.  "In the world,"
said Jesus to his disciples, "you will have tribulation.  But be of good
cheer; I have overcome the world."

The "Servant Songs" in the Book of Isaiah were inspired at a time when
Israel had been through the catastrophe of the destruction of Jerusalem
and the Babylonian exile.  It was a time of indescribable pain -- such as
we see in the Lamentations of Jeremiah.  The prophet had been despised and
rejected for carrying God's word to the community, a man of sorrows and
acquainted with grief, one from whom men hide their faces.  The faithful
remnant in the community itself could likewise be described in words of
the Song of the Suffering Servant, which is our first lesson today.  Yet
there is something transcendent about this scripture, rising above even
the most acute sufferings of ancient Israel.  The song gathers into itself
all the sufferings of all God's servants, all the sufferings of the whole
people of God in every time and place.  And yet there is more still.

When the first disciples were trying to come to terms with the appalling
injustice and scandal of Holy Week, there was no portion of scripture that
shed more light on the suffering and death of Jesus than our scripture
from Isaiah today.  We read it on Good Friday.  It was the hardest, and
the most important lesson of Easter; namely, as the risen Jesus impressed
upon them himself -- that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer, and
be killed, and after three days rise from the dead.  Both before and after
Jesus' death, this was the most painful, and the most salutary, truth of
the Gospel.  "It was the will of the Lord to bruise him; he has put him to
grief."  And we must realize that He whose will it was to bruise him was
none other than the same God who underwent the bruising personally, for
us and for our salvation:  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  That is why
St. Peter, preaching the first sermon on Pentecost, told his hearers that
Jesus was risen, because it "was impossible for death to hold him."

The awesome transfer of pain and suffering from the backs of the unrighteous
into the sacred heart of Jesus, the heart that was broken and pierced on the
cross and poured out blood and water (the very birth waters of the church),
that is the very center of the Gospel.  It is actually the center of the
cosmos as well, the revealing of the heart and purpose of God himself.
Whenever we think of the problem of pain and suffering, we need to recall
this greatest of Gospel truths and see that God has thought of the problem
well in advance, answering it with his own heart-breaking and ravishing
provision, the death and resurrection of God our Saviour.  When old Abraham
was prepared, for obedience's sake, even to sacrifice his and Sarah's only
son Isaac; when the angel called out "Do not lay your hand upon the lad"
and provided a ram caught in the thicket instead, Abraham called the name
of that place Moriah, for "on the mount of the Lord it shall be provided."
Two thousand years later, midway between Abraham and us, God offered up
himself in the person of the Son, a voluntary sacrifice that mysteriously
carries all sacrifices in it, healing all wounds, cleansing all sins,
repairing all infirmities.  On Mount Calvary it was provided.  As we sing
at Easter: "Jesus lives! Thy terrors now can no longer, death, appall us."

Week by week we re-present this sacrifice in the eucharistic mystery, the
sacrifice of the Mass.  It is not 2000 years away, it is here present,
because Christ is risen and lives and reigns.  As you witness, you respond,
as you participate, as you receive holy communion, know that here is the
Lamb who was sacrificed before the foundation of the world.  It was the
will of the Lord to bruise him.  He gave his life as a ransom for many.
He is the great high priest who has passed through the heavens, and he is
the spotless Lamb who has taken away the sins of the world, even yours and
mine.  Let us let him have his way with us, receive his grace and mercy,
and rise up renewed and refreshed.  O come let us adore him, and let us
love one anther as he has loved us.  Amen.

In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.

re: .80 COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"

I find this spectacularly unconvincing. Considering that we are dealing with an
omnipotent God...

>For God is not just the creator, he is also the saviour and the sanctifier;
If the creation had been done 'right' there would be no need for a saviour.

>To believe in the God of Jesus Christ, that is, the God of the Gospel, is
>to know that God had taken account of and responsibility for the possibility
>and presence of evil, and that he has decisively overcome it.
I would hope he takes responsibility for evil, he created it. As for decisivley 
overcoming it, I can only assume that the author does not read newspapers.

>God foresaw, before the foundation of the world, what was involved in such
>an enterprise, and he did not abandon his creation.
This is like me designing a program, seeing that it is fatally flawed, and
staying with it anyway.

>On the contrary, he involved himself in it, intimately.
Perhaps intimately, but not overtly (and not very well).

>human beings, all of whom have become sinners.
Only because, although we have been given free will, we are punished when others
use it incorrectly.

>It was the hardest, and the most important lesson of Easter; namely, as the
>risen Jesus impressed upon them himself -- that it was necessary for the Christ
>to suffer, and be killed, and after three days rise from the dead.
Why? I have never understood why an omnipotent being couldn't come up with a
better, less bloody way to do this. It is so full of wierdness that I cannot
even begin to comprehend how it can be taken seriously.

I give him credit for the attempt, but it is only useful to someone whom already
believes. It has no meaning outside of that circle. And although it touches
(lightly) on the problem of human evil, it says nothing of the evils of nature.

Steve