Re: problem of evil - to clear things up

"Damien Stanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I don't think I follow your point, but if your saying that the problem of
> evil is a nonsense, conceptually, then fine, but I think most people,
> including myself, recognise it as a problem that can be understood and
> thought about.  (The reason I wrote the original post was that I had seen
> lengthy debates on this group about it.)
>
No, I am not saying that it is conceptual nonsense; it is more like
blasphemy: the proponents of there being a problem of evil are placing their
wills in opposition to god's. What I am saying is that the concepts of good
and evil as they are employed in presenting the problem are purely human
conceptions, i.e., they represent a HUMAN (and, therefore, limited and
partial) on things.  Those limited and partial conceptions do not represent
a divine perspectives on existence.   What we are doing is demanding that
god conform itself with our merely human concerns and aims, and
manufacturing out of that an alleged problem.  The order of existence (and,
if there is a god, god's ordering of existence) flows forth wholly
independently of our human hopes, aspirations, etc.  For a believer in god,
our task is to conform ourselves to god's will, not demand that god conform
itself to our will.  To put it in different language: the human task is to
accept one's fate and, with a glad heart, act in accordance with it; it is
merely futile childishness to yammer and complain about how one can't, in
one's finitude, discern any reason for it.  Or still differently: god's ways
are utterly beyond human understanding; how can the finite grasp the
infinite?

Bill Snyder

> "Bill Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "Damien Stanton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  <snip>
> > > So there you have it:  problem of evil -> free will defence.   There
> isn't
> > > much else to it folks...
> > >
> > No, there are other possibilities.  To briefly outline only one (for a
> > complete account see Spinoza): good and evil are only limited partial
> > perspectives on things.  They have no place in viewing things as they
> really
> > are (in Spinoza's language sub specie aeternitatis).  So from god's
> > perspective our constant worrying about things like the problem of evil
> > shows only that we are viewing things in purely human terms (i.e., in
one
> > type of limited partial perspective).  And of course what else can be
> > expected of us; we are finite beings.  Good and evil can be cognized
only
> > within a finite perspective.  But we cannot blame EITHER good OR evil on
> > god.  And "free will" has nothing to do with it, except perhaps that is
is
> > another limited perspective on what it.
> >
> > Bill Snyder
> >
> >
>
>