The job of the Christian apologist is to make that question harder to answer, not easier.
Discuss.
Suffering in this world (and the next) is more horrible than you think, God is more powerful over evil than you can conceive and he is more loving towards you than you can imagine. So... "My God, why have you forsaken me?"
spot on!
ReplyDeletebest book by far on this is Henri Blocher, evil and the cross, on false roads:
ReplyDeleteIt is disturbing that Hick does not distinguish between partial ignorance, which could be caused by God's self-concealment, and the wicked error, the lie professed and then put into practice, of those who worship the creature rather than the Creator. When he develops the theme of human degeneracy, there is no echo of the indignation that the prophets manifested against idols. And then, when he does recognize an impenetrable mystery (Which would call in question his whole theodicy, were he to pause and really take account of it), it is with regard to unjust suffering, rather than sins against God. Neither does he shudder with horror, as do the biblical writers, at unbelief, rebellion, or spiritual infidelity and prostitution. We find rather that his theodicy tends, if not to justify evil (which at times he dares to say), at least to minimize it and excuse it. The refrain that echoes throughout the book is that of the /felix culpa/, which is not to be found in Holy Scripture. (p.57)
In the face of Leibniz' talk of dissonance linked with consonance, we are much less disposed to enjoy the harmony of the piece when we consider that the dissonance is called Buchenwald or cancer or the death of a child. (Henri Gouhier cited on p21)
on "theodicy": (sorry cant translate right now but he's essentially saying that attempts to justify god end up justifying evil, and emptying the evil out of evil.)
Précisément on constate que les divergences qui opposent les autres doctrines à la Bible ont toutes pour effet d'atténuer, ultimement de nier, le mal du mal. On lui fait place parmi les choses, on justifie de quelque façon sa présence. La stratégie est manifeste dans l'optimisme : le mal n'est que dissonance opportune dans la symphonie, il faut le comprendre (tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner). Mais le dualisme aussi fait rentrer le mal dans l'ordre ; comment s'indigner contre la symétrie ? Dans les formes libertaires, comment s'indigner très fort si la possibilité du mal est le prix de la liberté, qui, elle, est sans prix ? Et même la philosophie du chaos vide le mal de sa malice : s'il n'y a pas d'ordre, il n'y a pas de désordre non plus. Ainsi le mal cesse d'être traité et pensé comme le mal, l'injustifiable.
conclusion:
‘We have only narrowly escaped contradiction. The nagging problem persists…Necessary and legitimate distinctions do not resolve it, but in the end present it in different terms’ (p100-104)
Hi Chris,
ReplyDeleteI've been away a few days, but good comments as always.
I'll be interested to hear how Liz's battle of ideas goes.