Problem of Evil - End Justifies Means?

[buffalo]

I guess anything is allowed if it advances “the glory of god” even if it involves immense suffering.

That is because you believe suffering to be bad. Suffering can and does purify. It makes us stronger. It makes us better. Look at the soul not just bodily suffering.

One way or another before you see God you will undergo purgation. Either here on earth or through purgatory.

 

[john_doran]

I guess anything is allowed if it advances “the glory of god” even if it involves immense suffering.

well, if you can be a (negative) utilitarian, why can’t god?

 

[Joyousguard]

I guess anything is allowed if it advances “the glory of god” even if it involves immense suffering.

As was stated earier in this thread; God does not change but rather humanity and their understanding of God. The Old Testament teaches "an eye for an eye’ while the Gospels teaching “love on another”. They would seem to be in fact opposite or contrary to one another. An “eye for an eye” while it may seem contrary to what Jesus taught was in fact a huge step up from what was currently accepted at the time. As punishment for a crime mankind could kill the criminals family, relatives friends, really anyting they felt might be “just” punishment. The “eye for an eye” understanding was a vast improvement and set boundaries for justice and punishment.

Its not that the OT and the NT are in contradiction with one another but rather that the OT is the foundation for the NT and that mankind was not ready to quite accept what Jesus had to say. God doe snot change but rather we continualy come to understand Him better and better and more in tune with reality as it is.

Now I’ll say this in all honesty, instances of man killing by decree of God makes me very uncomfortable as it no doubt does to many. Christianity is not the “killing in the name of God” religion.

However, let us look at the passage directly for any possible answers that it might give us. Part of the original translation in Hebrew comes out as “send back to God”. This is a very interesting use of terms for something that at first glance appears to be a mass slaughter. It kind of makes you wonder if the rest of the translation in the paragraph is inaccurate as well.

“send back to God” is an interesting term because it denotes not death but rather a return to when they came, almost like sending them back to their master for punishment. The death in this case does not seem to be the punishment but rather the punishment would be handed out by God Himself. God merely requested that these people be sent before HIm. This also brings up and interesting discussion about murder, killing in context of us being God’s children and our existence owed to Him. Bu that is a bit beyond the scope of this question.

Suffice it to say there seems to be some very interesting Theology here.God using man to send transgressors before Him for judgment but at the same time showing that death is not the end of existence and should not be feared as such. In addition I would like to see the original translation because as we all know when translating from one language to another meanings are lost and changed to say nothing about copy to copy to copy all in different languages. There is definetly more to this passage then meets the eye and I think it may be the venue of clergyman specializing n Sacred Scripture rather than Philosophy.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I understand the historical incident but am not very clear on what analysis you you are trying to make from it

first, can you tell us what analysis can YOU make of it? thanks.

 

[Joyousguard]

first, can you tell us what analysis can YOU make of it? thanks.

see my immediate preceeding post.

Ultimately it leads me to a few more questions then potential answers but there is much more to this then what has been posted in this thread.

 

[Guldenat]

God does not allow evil but rather tolerates evil. This is important in itself before another step is taken. Allowing evil and tolerating evil are not the same thing. Allowing evil means in some manner or another you give your permission for that evil to exist or continue. Tolerating evil in this case is very different. God tolerates evil as a result of our freedom of choice. We have the ability to choose that which is wrong and thus create evil as a result. God tolerates this because to do otherwise would be to impede our freedom of choice.

You are playing with and redefining words. God does allow evil. Here is the appropriate dictionary defination of allow: to permit by neglect, oversight, or the like: to allow a door to remain open.
To tolerate: to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.

 

[Joyousguard]

You are playing with and redefining words. God does allow evil. Here is the appropriate dictionary defination of allow: to permit by neglect, oversight, or the like: to allow a door to remain open.
To tolerate: to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.

While you are correct in your use of definitions, there is an error in context. The correct definition for tolerance to use in this particular theological context is “tolerance - to endure without repugnance; put up with” (dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerate)

When it comes to theological understanding sometimes one definition of the word will not, nor does fit. Another example would be “imitation”. When we talk about the immitation of Christ. Not all defintions are appropriate for the understanding of what this word means in context of the theological discussion.

With this in mind it becomes apparent why the defintion of essentially “putting up with” becomes the case and not ‘allowance’.

 

[Guldenat]

While you are correct in your use of definitions, there is an error in context. The correct definition for tolerance to use in this particular theological context is “tolerance - to endure without repugnance; put up with” (dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerate)

When it comes to theological understanding sometimes one definition of the word will not, nor does fit. Another example would be “imitation”. When we talk about the immitation of Christ. Not all defintions are appropriate for the understanding of what this word means in context of the theological discussion.

With this in mind it becomes apparent why the defintion of essentially “putting up with” becomes the case and not ‘allowance’.

The example you used to make your point was another definition of tolerance - that was the word you used, so I’m not sure why you would potentially debunk your own description (to endure something without repugnance is incorrect - God finds sin repugnant. If God does not detest sin, then their is no sin). The fact is, allow and tolerate are both acceptable words as the proper definitions of both in this case make them synonyms. In this context, “allow” does not imply God thinks an action good, nor does “tolerate” imply the converse. Furthermore, it has been my experience theologians use the terms interchangeably.

 

[peary]

**I had a priest in high school tell us that evil exists because God has permitted it to exist. In the book of Genesis, it says that God looked at His creation and saw that it was “good.” He didn’t say that it was “perfect.” God permits evil because out of it comes the greatest good.

Personally, I think the gift of freedom precludes perfection by its very nature.

I do not think that the use of evil to obtain a good is ever justified. In fact, it can’t ever happen. You cannot get a good out of a bad if you use it willingly and as a conscious decision.**

 

[Joyousguard]

The example you used to make your point was another definition of tolerance - that was the word you used, so I’m not sure why you would potentially debunk your own description (to endure something without repugnance is incorrect - God finds sin repugnant. If God does not detest sin, then their is no sin). The fact is, allow and tolerate are both acceptable words as the proper definitions of both in this case make them synonyms. In this context, “allow” does not imply God thinks an action good, nor does “tolerate” imply the converse. Furthermore, it has been my experience theologians use the terms interchangeably.

If we look at the writings of Julian of Norwich one of the great mystics, we see something quite interesting. Julian talks about us hurting God or harming God by our actions and sins. Julian goes on to say that it is impossible to harm God or upset God. These things are impossible to do. One could no more harm God with our actions then we could strike Him with our fists. The understanding of harming God is only for our own lack of being able to comprehend.

The understanding that we can comprehend goes like this; “Sins upsets God because sin harms us and whatever is harmful to us is upsetting to God” This is the way humanity would understand it. However, God can not ever be harmed in any manner by our actions. This is a unique paradox. So it would stand to reason that our understanding of harming God is lacking in one manner or another.

Thus God tolerates sin without repugnance is correct for the Lord can not find anything repugnant in a true sense but we merely attribute these emotions and states to Him in order to better comprehend it ourselves. God does not allow evil but rather tolerates it.

 

[Guldenat]

If we look at the writings of Julian of Norwich one of the great mystics, we see something quite interesting. Julian talks about us hurting God or harming God by our actions and sins. Julian goes on to say that it is impossible to harm God or upset God. These things are impossible to do. One could no more harm God with our actions then we could strike Him with our fists. The understanding of harming God is only for our own lack of being able to comprehend.

The understanding that we can comprehend goes like this; “Sins upsets God because sin harms us and whatever is harmful to us is upsetting to God” This is the way humanity would understand it. However, God can not ever be harmed in any manner by our actions. This is a unique paradox. So it would stand to reason that our understanding of harming God is lacking in one manner or another.

Thus God tolerates sin without repugnance is correct for the Lord can not find anything repugnant in a true sense but we merely attribute these emotions and states to Him in order to better comprehend it ourselves. God does not allow evil but rather tolerates it.

I do agree that we cannot harm God. However, your conclusion is a non sequiter. To find something repugnant is not to be harmed by it, it is to find something objectionable or offensive. I am not suggesting that God is harmed by sin, rather that he finds it obejectionable (there can be no argument that God objects to sin), and if he finds it objectionable, then as a synonym we can say he finds it repugnant.
A second reason why your conclusion does not follow your premises is that you spent your post debunking why God would find something repugnant, and after you believed you had done this, you concluded “to allow” was not the right word to use. However, “to allow” has nothing to do with finding something repugnant at all. You have yet to show why the word tolerate is a more accurate descriptor.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

The thread is straying from the OP’s question. Please return to the original topic, and take side issues to new or existing threads in their appropriate fora. Thank you all.

 

[Joyousguard]

I do agree that we cannot harm God. However, your conclusion is a non sequiter. To find something repugnant is not to be harmed by it, it is to find something objectionable or offensive. I am not suggesting that God is harmed by sin, rather that he finds it obejectionable (there can be no argument that God objects to sin), and if he finds it objectionable, then as a synonym we can say he finds it repugnant.
A second reason why your conclusion does not follow your premises is that you spent your post debunking why God would find something repugnant, and after you believed you had done this, you concluded “to allow” was not the right word to use. However, “to allow” has nothing to do with finding something repugnant at all. You have yet to show why the word tolerate is a more accurate descriptor.

First and foremost I should try and clarify what Julian of Norwich said and I inturn wrote.

Sin harms us and since it harms us it upsets God. However God can not be upset nor can He be offended in anyway. This understanding creates a paradox. This understanding is the best that finite human beings can hope to explain the infinite God. It is put into terms that are not quite accuarrate because they are contrary to one another. However, this understanding is the best thus far that humanity is able to comprehend in our meger understanding. We attempt to use our own sense of reason and rational to understand the finite. In the real theological understanding God can not be effected in anyway by man’s actions. Therefore our understanding of the effects of sin upon God are reduced to something that we can at least grasp because it becomes clear that there is something we don’t understand. Now keeping this in mind that we truly do not understand exactly but we do have a half understanding.

Tolerance is not the same thing as allowance. Allowance gives assent or permission for an act either before, after or during. Tolerance on the other hand means that God does not give His permission but tolerates the actions as a result of freedom of choice. That is to say in example "the evil that freedom of choice causes is tolerated by God rather than allowed (allowed meaning that one gives their permission).

Let me explain further. Mary asks us to pray to her for the wounded heart of Jesus, the very famous painting of the heart of Jesus with the thorns around it. Now Mary is asking us to pray to her for the “wounded heart” of Jesus but we know full well that we can not effect God nor harm Him in any manner let alone wound Him. This concept of the wounded heart of Jesus is the closest thing possible to us being able to understand the true infinite understanding. It’s similiar to explaining the causes of the Civil war to kids as simply slavery. They are not able to understand more at that point.

Julian of Norwich was given these revelations by God. However, the education of Julian was very limited as demonstarted by the lack of proper grammer in his writings. It also might stand to reason that part of the difficulty in the revelation from God lies in the fact that Julian was not able to understand it and thus was not able to articulate it as well as it was spoken to Him. Or simply put he was not able to express the true explanation in words that woiuld allow for all of us to comprehend and are thus left with an example that is contrary to our theological understanding but none the less completely understandable at the same time.

 

[Joyousguard]

The thread is straying from the OP’s question. Please return to the original topic, and take side issues to new or existing threads in their appropriate fora. Thank you all.

Sorry, force of habit.

But in our defense the topic is so broad that offshoots are really under the same heading. If the ends justify the means then God can allow evil and even condone it as long as something good comes from it. However, since God does not allow evil but rather tolerates it, this would mean that God does not allow evil but rather allows for freedom of choice and tolerates the evil that occurs as a result of that choice. If so, then God’s tolerance of evil, rather than support of it, would not give creedance to the “end justifying the means” and would in fact give support to just the opposite belief that the “ends do not justify the means” and what better support for that argument than God in your corner.