Comments on: Does Evil Point to God’s Perfection?

By: Demian Farnworth

Demian Farnworth — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:37:55 +0000

James, I actually don’t ride that bus or Metro much at all but when I do…I’m like you…zoning out…whether in a book, laptop or diary…so I don’t always notice either. In fact, at times, I do notice and pretend I don’t, cause, well just a tad selfish and self-centered at times.

By: James

James — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:50:27 +0000

Likewise, but because I tend to zone out a lot on buses, I worry that I won’t notice.
So unless the bus is rather empty I tend to just stand anyway, and zone out in mental comfort. And in my line of work (software), any time doing something other than sitting is time well spent.

By: Demian Farnworth

Demian Farnworth — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:24:09 +0000

James, you are correct, these are things God considered the right thing to do…I thought you meant they were about him. And by the way, I do try to give the aged my seat on the bus. And women.

By: James

James — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:54:31 +0000

Demian,

Your examples don’t apply to God…my original statement was that God was morally impeccable. Your examples were decrees God gave to Israel–whether to preserve ceremony or cleanliness.

I had assumed, given the context that these were things that god considered the right thing to do.
God even starts out the list by saying ‘Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.’ and finishes by saying ‘Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the LORD.’. Some of the items here later make the ten commandments.

I suppose there is a less provocative example from that chapter in verse 32: ‘Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the LORD’.
That definately looks like a moral decree rather than ceremonial one, yet nobody rises in the presence of the aged, unless you count giving them a seat on the bus.

By: Demian Farnworth

Demian Farnworth — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:17:02 +0000

James: Your dragging out a red herring. Your examples don’t apply to God…my original statement was that God was morally impeccable. Your examples were decrees God gave to Israel–whether to preserve ceremony or cleanliness.
–
Robert, starting from the top: I’m assuming you don’t approve of Pascal’s Wager. Am I correct? Why not? Also, yes, the proof that God will one day defeat evil is only found in the Bible. You described human jealousy well but trip over God’s jealousy, like we all do, by thinking anthropomorphically, so, human and Godly jealousy are different…and I was probably wrong to say that God NEEDS to preserve his holiness, so no, mere humans aren’t attacking it nor could they damage it…it being morally spotless in character, motives, thoughts, words and actions…the source and standard of what is right…totally and utterly set apart from all creation. Hm, smells like a future post.

By: Robert Madewell

Robert Madewell — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:59:50 +0000

1. Pleasing a holy and just God is a whole lot safer than alienating him.

.
Actually, this reminds me of Pascal’s Wager. Take the chance that God exists and that he is holy and just. Just to be on the safe side. Just in case.
.

2. God will one day defeat evil.

.
The only proof you have of this is in the Bible. Am I correct?

By: Robert Madewell

Robert Madewell — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:54:58 +0000

God posses a holy jealousy and a morally perfect character. The former is what gives God zeal to protect and preserve his own holiness. The latter is the absolute moral perfection that pervades the character of God.

.
I’m not sure that jealous and morally perfect are compatible. The way that I describe jealousy in my own character is that it is irrational thinking. Would a morally perfect creature think irrationally? Or is human jealousy and holy jealousy different? This is somewhat confusing to me.
.
Why would God need to preserve his holiness? Is his holiness under attack by mere humans? If so, how would humans be able to damage a perfectly moral being’s holiness? Btw, what is holiness in the first place?

By: Richard DeVeau

Richard DeVeau — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:58:54 +0000

Demian,
Well articulated post. I like how your mind works.
~
I’ve recently been thinking about these very things, but in terms of art, faith and culture. (Big surprise, huh?)
~
In our popular culture, goodness is usually equated with sentimentality, truth is reduced to a subjective experience, and beauty has become a superficial obsession with physical perfection and completely disconnected from truth and goodness.
~
But, because of Christ’s willing sacrifice, death is now life, pain is the door to healing, and a weakened and broken body is now the image of transcendent beauty. Brokenness, pain and blood are now the source of beauty, goodness and truth.
~
In a very real and tangible way, many things that were once “evil” are now the very definition of what is “good” through the Incarnation and God’s plan for our redemption.

While this is all a bit tangential from the pure intent of your post, I thought it would be okay to share these related thoughts.

And I agree, all philosophers should either be
4 years-old, or at least think like one!

By: James

James — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:55:21 +0000

Matthew,

Do you think after that first moment of creation where God pronounced the world “good”, that there were no carnivorous animals, and that weather patterns were stable, such that there was never any “nasty weather” (I’m thinking of those watchtower tracts) .
And after sin etc, that animals morphed into clawed beasts who hunt each other, and the weather model somehow became prone to hurricanes and earthquakes?

I am just curious about how this idea of a perfect environment here on earth works practically.

Demian,

If, by morally impeccable, you include not planting your field with two kinds of seeds, or wearing clothing woven from two kinds of material and not cutting the hair at the side of your head or trimming your beard, then why have those moral standards fallen by the wayside in modern churches?

By: Matthew

Matthew — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:32:20 +0000

Yes, I was subtly paying you a compliment Furthermore, on the subject of good and evil – when God finished aspects of His creation he pronounced them Good (see Genesis). I doubt He was merely complimenting himself on his own handiwork. He made a sovereign pronouncement, a definitive declaration. Would God have done that if there were no Evil? If everything were Good the then would he have bothered to point out to us what is Good, and by contrast what is Evil?