So what’s the “greater good” in God “allowing” rape and abortion? Whatever you think it is, does God not have the power to bring about that greater good without “allowing” pre-born children,to be killed or “allowing” women as well as little girls to be raped?
I think Origen sees the greater good as human freedom. But I’m interested in not only Origen’s answer, but yours. If you think God has power to bring the greatest good without allowing such evil acts, how do you account for their existence?
"My view is that rape and abortion aresinful…, If God committed those acts He would not be sinning… & will make it right by working all such things for good. Humans are incapable of doing that.
On second thought… I’m skeptical that it makes sense to declare something is innately “sinful,” yet is not sinful depending on Who does it. I suspect that your justification that being able to use sinful actions “for good” is what makes it not sinful (for God), sounds like the relative morality of utilitarian ethics where the end can justify any means. This premise seems to invite the many humans who thoroughly believe that they too can see a rape or abortion working for good, to hold that such a choice is not sinful.
While sometimes we face difficult moral choices as to which is the lesser evil, I personally am inclined to sense that some acts are intrinsically perverse, and that the morality of them is intrinsic and absolute. Thus my sense is that even Jesus (God incarnate) can never rape someone without it being morally tainted.
As God Incarnate puts it, all God’s moral law depends on loving the neighbor, and love does no harm to neighbors. And I find it difficult to presume that rape is not harmful to those raped, no matter Who does it. This accords with St. Paul’s admonition that we should “imitate God,” which seems to presume that the true God is the reliable epitome of love, goodness, and morality, and thus an example worthy of our imitation.
While Bible writers sometimes present God as doing or endorsing things I myself perceive as morally problematic, I’m not sure even they assert that God can do any evil, and if He does it, it becomes moral.
That’s a powerful point that gets to the heart of the matter, and is the key point in Channing’s “The Moral Argument Against Calvinism” which, along with GMac’s ‘Justice’ freed me from that belief system.
Here’s something I shared elsewhere. And a trip down memory lane - resurrected it.
Theology is the way man views God’s attempt to communicate with us. This gets a different spin, depending on the Protestant denominational filter you see through. In a more global perspective, the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, and Protestant denominations have different “ways of seeing’.
In the garden of Eden story, man was created in the image and likeness of God. The Eastern Orthodox take that statement “very seriously” and gave it a perspective – Theosis (1, 2) – which is the way mankind strives for Union with God.
There’s a classic book entitled: Cosmic Consciousness: A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind by Richard Maurice Bucke. It’s available at http://www.amazon.com. In it, he describes various figures in history having spiritual awakening experiences.
Another way to look at it is this. We were initially created in God’s image and likeness – this perspective never completely disappeared. Being human, we fall short – which is why Christ came. Yet what Christ has done for mankind is different in Eastern Orthodox theology than in the western theological worlds of Roman Catholic and Protestant theology.
Perhaps things like awakening experiences (i.e. Zen Satori or Eastern Kundalini), metaphysical healing (i.e. Christian Science, Unity, Infinite Way, etc.), are just mankind getting back to what was available in the garden of Eden. Now movements like Zen and Christian Science have their own perspectives on these topics. And these experiences can be beneficial – as author Maurice Bucke points out. But they fall short of the original perfection – which gets back to the mission and purpose of Christ.
The reason that God usually does nothing to prevent the atrocities that continue to perpetuate in the world is NOT in order to bring about a greater good. In order to bring about greater goods, God does NEVER requires man to commit tortures, abortions, and rapes.
The reason God usually does nothing to prevent the atrocities that continue to perpetuate in the world, is because He will not interfere with the free will of man. He wants every individual, to choose to submit to His Lordship, and coöperate with His enabling grace. Eventually every individual will willingly do so. That choice cannot be forced by God, or it would not be a choice.
If you want to call this “a greater good” so be it. But usually this great purpose of God to reconcile all to Himself has never entered the heads of those who speak of God’s “allowing” evil in order to accomplish a greater good.
Yes, I suspected this difference is semantic. What you call preserving “free will of man” is what Origen calls preserving “human freedom,” and sees as the important value or “good” that justifies allowing so much evil. And it appears that he (and you?) perceive that God indeed does not have the power to preserve this good of freewill without allowing rape, innocent slaughter, etc. I think that is the classic Arminian apologetic.
[quote=“Bob_Wilson, post:194, topic:13832”]
While sometimes we face difficult moral choices as to which is the lesser evil, I personally am inclined to sense that some acts are intrinsically perverse, and that the morality of them is intrinsic and absolute. Thus my sense is that even Jesus (God incarnate) can never rape someone without it being morally tainted
[/quote] (I’ll give a to that one)
to that one)