So today I'm going to try to rough up materialism and pantheism a bit before moving on. This is not really on topic, and may seem downright mean to some people who have accepted the modern idea that to deny someone's beliefs is to make a personal attack. But still, chances are, if I don't, and I just start talking about eternity, all the
(
Read more... )
The "greater good through evil" answer is used by some Christians, yes, but not most of the real heavyweight theologians. I object to the notion as much in Theism as I do in Pantheism; it makes no nevermind whether God's in or out for this question. I can't hold that God desired that "Adam and Eve" would "eat the fruit" in question. I can hold that he would be willing to create the world, even knowing that they (might/would), because on the whole the story and outcome would be good, but that is a different question. God can use evil for good; St. Paul says so, and I've seen Him do it with enormous frequency. And yet, "should we then sin, that good may abound? By no means."
Theodicy through a combination of free will and eternity-spun, even-handed symbolism is the only thing that's ever worked for me, but it works well. I do confess, though, that the question of whether God needs to be "outside the universe" seems to me (at the moment; my mind changes often) to be almost meaningless. Still, in order for the symbolism to be effective, He must be able to interact freely with the whole of time, and thus have many of the aspects of the Christian God.
Reply
Leave a comment