Jesus and the Problem of Evil

[Dunemeister]

We not only have two states: sleeping and awake but three states: sleeping, dreaming and awake. If we are asleep there is no problem. Sleeping people do not do not argue, do not fight,do not kill, do not divide. When sleep we are harmless.
We noot only sleep but also dream: dreams are our ideals,our philosophical systems, theological systems, our religions, our scriptures, our prophets. It is in this state that we argue, we differ from others, we defend our dreams, we kill each other, we die for our dreams. We need to awake from the dreams also and realize our true nature. This is the most difficult thing to do. If we are awakened then no discussion is necessary.

Whatever else this is, it has absolutely nothing to do with Christ. Your "interpretation" of the parable is simply your imposition of your own philosophical theories onto the parable.

 

[John Martin]

What does this mean please?

" we are creaturely by nature" and "our calling as the image of God".

Does it mean the Genesis account is wrong that man was made "in the image of God"?

The Genesis story is written from the dualistic point of view. In the dualistic point of view the act of Adam and Eve is seen as a rebellion against God. The desire of Adam and Eve is seen an act of sin.
From the non-dualistic point of view the act of Adam and Eve is sees as an evolutionary process of human beings. The desire of Adam and Eve to become like God is seen as a genuine aspiration of human beings to become conscious of their image and likeness of God. It is not an act of sin or rebellion.
In the dualistic point of view human beings are creatures of God, created by God in his image and likeness. In the non-dualistic point of view human beings are manifested (not created) in the image and likeness of God.
From the dualistic point of view the desire of human beings is a sin or an act of rebellion.
From the non-dualistic point of view it is a genuine longing of the human beings to become conscious of their true nature.

Human beings are created or manifested in the image and likeness of God but in the beginning as children we are not conscious of it. What is unconscious has to become conscious. This is the whole purpose of our spiritual evolution.

 

[savagewind]

The Church disagrees. We spilt a lot of ink over this issue so that by 325 AD, we were able to clarify how the words "nature" and "person" worked. Nowadays, we might bandy about words more loosely, but when we are making theological statements, we need to be much more precise. It is not our "divine nature" that makes us able to do the will of God. It is our very human nature becoming partakers of the divine nature that enables us to do the will of God. Apart from the deifying grace of the Holy Spirit, humans are utterly unable to do the will of God. With that deifying grace, humans are able to exercise their free will to do God's will. If we were able to do God's will already, the Incarnation would have been completely unnecessary.

We need to be more precise? You are calling those dead people of 325 AD "we". That blows me away...........................................................................

I'm back. Please define "nature". How are you using that word please?

 

[Dunemeister]

Please define "nature". How are you using that word please?

To a first approximation, "nature" (the Fathers sometimes use "essence") means "that which is common". When we talk of human nature, we are talking about that which all humans have in common and thus make them human and not something else. It is part of human nature to be created; it is God's nature to be uncreated. Thus JM's statements conflate the natures of humans and God. He says that humans are divine in the sense that we are, by nature, whatever God is, but we have forgotten that and that salvation consists in our realizing this is the case. All this smacks of gnosticism and pantheism, although he says he denies the pantheism bit (but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...).

 

[savagewind]

To a first approximation, "nature" (the Fathers sometimes use "essence") means "that which is common". When we talk of human nature, we are talking about that which all humans have in common and thus make them human and not something else. It is part of human nature to be created; it is God's nature to be uncreated. Thus JM's statements conflate the natures of humans and God. He says that humans are divine in the sense that we are, by nature, whatever God is, but we have forgotten that and that salvation consists in our realizing this is the case. All this smacks of gnosticism and pantheism, although he says he denies the pantheism bit (but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...).

We are not what God IS. We are what God can do. We can even create, can we not?

 

[Dunemeister]

The Genesis story is written from the dualistic point of view. In the dualistic point of view the act of Adam and Eve is seen as a rebellion against God. The desire of Adam and Eve is seen an act of sin.
From the non-dualistic point of view the act of Adam and Eve is sees as an evolutionary process of human beings. The desire of Adam and Eve to become like God is seen as a genuine aspiration of human beings to become conscious of their image and likeness of God. It is not an act of sin or rebellion.
In the dualistic point of view human beings are creatures of God, created by God in his image and likeness. In the non-dualistic point of view human beings are manifested (not created) in the image and likeness of God.
From the dualistic point of view the desire of human beings is a sin or an act of rebellion.
From the non-dualistic point of view it is a genuine longing of the human beings to become conscious of their true nature.

Human beings are created or manifested in the image and likeness of God but in the beginning as children we are not conscious of it. What is unconscious has to become conscious. This is the whole purpose of our spiritual evolution.

You don't "interpret" a story by changing its frame of reference. What you are doing is not interpreting the story, you are rewriting it to suit your own tastes. The fact is that the Genesis story does not affirm what you want to affirm, so you change it. Same with the parable you cited.

It would be more honest to acknowledge what these texts actually say, and then frankly admit that Jesus and Moses were off their rockers than to mangle the texts themselves as you do.

This thread is supposedly about how Jesus resolves the problem of evil. Jesus does address the problem, but not the way you want him to.

 

[Dunemeister]

We are not what God IS. We are what God can do. We can even create, can we not?

I agree that we are not what God is. We are created, God is not. Your second sentence is confusing. I'd say "We can do some of the things God can do." This is true at least by way of analogy, and your example of creation is apt. Many theologians have argued that because we are created in the image of God, we have certain unique characteristics or abilities that separate us from "irrational" creatures. Among these are our intellectual and spiritual capacities, including creation / art.

JM, in pantheist fashion, is saying that humans and God share the same essence or nature. We don't. No matter how hard we try, or what we do, God will always be "other than" us.

 

[savagewind]

I agree that we are not what God is. We are created, God is not. Your second sentence is confusing. I'd say "We can do some of the things God can do." This is true at least by way of analogy, and your example of creation is apt. Many theologians have argued that because we are created in the image of God, we have certain unique characteristics or abilities that separate us from "irrational" creatures. Among these are our intellectual and spiritual capacities, including creation / art.

JM, in pantheist fashion, is saying that humans and God share the same essence or nature. We don't. No matter how hard we try, or what we do, God will always be "other than" us.

I think you can rightly say he SEEMS (to you) to be saying. He SEEMS to me to be the smartest theologian type I have ever heard. I am quite sure he ISN'T saying we can become UNcreated.

Please forgive me for talking about you John Martin.

 

[Windwalker]

There is relative good and relative evil. These two are interconnected, like two sides of the same coin. They belong to the evolutionary process of human consciousness. We cannot solve the problem by trying to eradicate the relative evil. Only by going beyond relative good and relative evil and discovering the absolute good we can handle the relative evil. It is discovering the kingdom of God. It is awakening to our true self.

I was just thinking yesterday to start a topic on this very thing you bring up, and look, here you have done this already! (These things do not surprise me anymore).

I agree with you, no surprise there either. I wish to expand what you say above with another element, and that is how this relative good and evil correspond with degrees of our relative awareness. Someone who is much more in the traditionalist mode of understanding sees the world in terms of a battle between good and evil. There are friends and enemies. You are either on the side of good, or you are on the side of evil. You either serve good, or you serve evil. You are either 'saved' or you are 'lost'. In or out.

But as our conscious mind moves outward, we begin to see others less as 'outside', and instead see ourselves in them too, they are like us, even though they are 'foreigners' to our ways of thinking and our conventions of how we live our lives. This is a furthering of an expansion of our consciousness, just as moving into the mode of thinking the world is controlled by external forces of good and evil (God and the Devil), is a move of consciousness further out than believing the world is connected to our thoughts and controlled by them (in the way the child sees his shadow as part of himself).

To take this to the parable of the wheat and tares, I believe Jesus through his Wisdom was speaking to the literal, traditionalist minds of his audience who sees the world as in this pitched battle of good versus evil, couching what he realized within those terms they could understand, but was saying something far more profound, far beyond just some battle of good versus evil. He realized that all levels of seeing the world, all modes of thought, coexisted together as part of the system of evolution, or "growth" as he would understand that, towards the greater, or Absolute Good.

The 'tares' are really those imperfections that work together within ourselves, and within our systems, as we move towards that Absolute. You are right, the 'evil' is relative. It is not truly evil in the sense of an absolute. It is simply that which is the stone against which the blade is sharpened. In the highest sense of the word, the "devil" is a servant of God. (Certainly this is true in the OT portrait of Satan). In the end, through refinement, the dross is removed to reveal the purity of the metal. But to remove the fire, to remove the system, to remove the stages of growth, the processes of evolution, would be to leave us unrefined, in slumber, in an unconscious state not Realizing our Unity with God.

 

[John Martin]

I was just thinking yesterday to start a topic on this very thing you bring up, and look, here you have done this already! (These things do not surprise me anymore).

I agree with you, no surprise there either. I wish to expand what you say above with another element, and that is how this relative good and evil correspond with degrees of our relative awareness. Someone who is much more in the traditionalist mode of understanding sees the world in terms of a battle between good and evil. There are friends and enemies. You are either on the side of good, or you are on the side of evil. You either serve good, or you serve evil. You are either 'saved' or you are 'lost'. In or out.



But as our conscious mind moves outward, we begin to see others less as 'outside', and instead see ourselves in them too, they are like us, even though they are 'foreigners' to our ways of thinking and our conventions of how we live our lives. This is a furthering of an expansion of our consciousness, just as moving into the mode of thinking the world is controlled by external forces of good and evil (God and the Devil), is a move of consciousness further out than believing the world is connected to our thoughts and controlled by them (in the way the child sees his shadow as part of himself).

To take this to the parable of the wheat and tares, I believe Jesus through his Wisdom was speaking to the literal, traditionalist minds of his audience who sees the world as in this pitched battle of good versus evil, couching what he realized within those terms they could understand, but was saying something far more profound, far beyond just some battle of good versus evil. He realized that all levels of seeing the world, all modes of thought, coexisted together as part of the system of evolution, or "growth" as he would understand that, towards the greater, or Absolute Good.

The 'tares' are really those imperfections that work together within ourselves, and within our systems, as we move towards that Absolute. You are right, the 'evil' is relative. It is not truly evil in the sense of an absolute. It is simply that which is the stone against which the blade is sharpened. In the highest sense of the word, the "devil" is a servant of God. (Certainly this is true in the OT portrait of Satan). In the end, through refinement, the dross is removed to reveal the purity of the metal. But to remove the fire, to remove the system, to remove the stages of growth, the processes of evolution, would be to leave us unrefined, in slumber, in an unconscious state not Realizing our Unity with God.

Dear Windwalker, thank you for your excellent observations. I fully agree with you. You have made an wonderful synthesis. may the Lord bless you.

 

[John Martin]

Whatever else this is, it has absolutely nothing to do with Christ. Your "interpretation" of the parable is simply your imposition of your own philosophical theories onto the parable.

Yes, just as the evangelists had imposed their views on the parables of Jesus based on the situation of the early Church so also I am imposing my own views on the parable of Jesus based on my own understanding of reality. Is my view infallible. I do not think so but it helps me in this particular moment of my spiritual life. If someone offers me a better interpretation I am willing to accept.

 

[Sculelos]

Those who love truth, will love God.

Those who hate truth, will hate God.

Those who hate truth will have their energy spread and then their energy will be put into Gold that will pave the streets in the kingdom of heaven. That is to say they will be in heaven... as Gold.

There will be a separate area outside of the city that the people will go forth to gaze upon the perfectly preserved manikin like body's and be able to relive their whole life and see what level of hate for truth led them to their self destruction.

 

[Windwalker]

That sounds positively awful. I wouldn't want to go some place where we walked upon the ground up remains of others. That's doesn't sound like a very loving and compassionate place.

 

[Thief]

Jesus and the Problem of Evil. Mt.13
Did Jesus give any solution to the problem of Evil? It seems to me that he has given int he Parable of the Wheat and the Tares.


How did the tares( evil) appear? the answer seems to be 'when men slept', to be asleep is to forget one's true nature, it is a kind of spiritual death. In the beginning there is only absolute good. Only when human beings fall into sleep, forget their true nature, come relative good and relative evil. Relative good and relative evil are inter connected. We cannot take away one without taking the other. The labourers ask the owner, did you not sow the good seeds and how did the tares come? The enemy has done it. When did the enemy come? Enemy comes when one is asleep. Forgetfulness of one's true nature is the real enemy that beings enemies. The labourers wanted to gather the tares. But the owner does not allow it? Since relative evil and relative good are interconnected- removing one also disturbs the other. There is no solution at that level. We need to wait for the time of awakening from our sleep, from our spiritual death, then we go beyond relative good and relative evil and discover the original absolute Good that has no opposite called Evil. In this spiritual awakening the relative evil will be completely eliminated and what remains is absolute Good.

Trying to focus on this one item.....
I believe we find our true nature ......in our dreams.
And when we die....we share those dreams.

Do you have sweet dreams?....or are you troubled?
Will you be invited into the next realm?.....or rejected for your lack of peace?

As for living with evil in this life....yes we do.
How we respond forms the spirit we become.
The spirit we become makes all the difference.

Sorry if I interrupted the flow of thought in this thread.

 

[Dunemeister]

Yes, just as the evangelists had imposed their views on the parables of Jesus based on the situation of the early Church so also I am imposing my own views on the parable of Jesus based on my own understanding of reality. Is my view infallible. I do not think so but it helps me in this particular moment of my spiritual life. If someone offers me a better interpretation I am willing to accept.

Post 35 by Rocky S, which cites the Lord Himself interpreting the parable, ought to qualify as better.

Oh, that's right, I forgot. It isn't better because it isn't what Jesus said at all. Rather, here we have a case of the Church imposing its views on what Jesus may or may not have said. It's a pretty convenient idea, this notion that the Church imposed its views on Jesus' parables rather than the reverse. It allows one to completely ignore the Church's authoritative teaching on the parables and bend them to any use one likes as long as it "helps me in this particular moment" (as if one's personal assessment of what 'helps me in this particular moment' is relevant to interpretation).

 

[Sculelos]

That sounds positively awful. I wouldn't want to go some place where we walked upon the ground up remains of others. That's doesn't sound like a very loving and compassionate place.

Remember, this will only be for mankind's eternal benefit. Mankind will still have the knowledge of Good and Evil and be able to learn all about it in this area. However this area will educate any humans who are born into the kingdom of heaven what the knowledge of Good and Evil is like and all who venture forth will learn and abhor all evil acts.

However I imagine, some will spend a very large amount of time in this place, some will spend very little time in this place. People in heaven will still have individual personalities after all and some are simply more curious then others. :angel2:

 

[John Martin]

Post 35 by Rocky S, which cites the Lord Himself interpreting the parable, ought to qualify as better.

Oh, that's right, I forgot. It isn't better because it isn't what Jesus said at all. Rather, here we have a case of the Church imposing its views on what Jesus may or may not have said. It's a pretty convenient idea, this notion that the Church imposed its views on Jesus' parables rather than the reverse. It allows one to completely ignore the Church's authoritative teaching on the parables and bend them to any use one likes as long as it "helps me in this particular moment" (as if one's personal assessment of what 'helps me in this particular moment' is relevant to interpretation).

There is no authoritative teaching of the Church for all times. The Church evolves and its interpretations will change. Take for example the concept of the Kingdom of God. It has been understood in many ways in the history of the Church. It was even identified with the Church. In the second Vatican council it gave a fresh interpretation saying that the kingdom of God is the kingdom of peace, justice and equality etc. The same thing with the concept of heaven and hell. They were thought to be physical places now they are understood as the states of consciousness. Spiritual truths have to be understood in the time and situations we live, otherwise they become irrelevant.

 

[Thief]

There is no authoritative teaching of the Church for all times. The Church evolves and its interpretations will change. Take for example the concept of the Kingdom of God. It has been understood in many ways in the history of the Church. It was even identified with the Church. In the second Vatican council it gave a fresh interpretation saying that the kingdom of God is the kingdom of peace, justice and equality etc. The same thing with the concept of heaven and hell. They were thought to be physical places now they are understood as the states of consciousness. Spiritual truths have to be understood in the time and situations we live, otherwise they become irrelevant.[/quote]

Would a spiritual truth then be something you would be willing to say....
as you stand in heaven among angels?

Something you would say now....would be appropriate later on?

 

[John Martin]

There is no authoritative teaching of the Church for all times. The Church evolves and its interpretations will change. Take for example the concept of the Kingdom of God. It has been understood in many ways in the history of the Church. It was even identified with the Church. In the second Vatican council it gave a fresh interpretation saying that the kingdom of God is the kingdom of peace, justice and equality etc. The same thing with the concept of heaven and hell. They were thought to be physical places now they are understood as the states of consciousness. Spiritual truths have to be understood in the time and situations we live, otherwise they become irrelevant.[/quote]

Would a spiritual truth then be something you would be willing to say....
as you stand in heaven among angels?

Something you would say now....would be appropriate later on?

I believe that Jesus Christ has said a spiritual truth which is valid for all eternity. It is the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is the transformation of our life into life of God and our actions into actions of God. It is to allow God to work in and through us. Jesus Christ said: the works which I do are not my own but the Father who dwells in me does his works'. He also said, 'the Father and I are one'. This is the original state of human beings, this is the original truth which is valid for all eternity. This truth is more a state of being than a system. It is the experience of one hundred percent love of God and once hundred percent of love of neighbour.Truth is something alive and dynamic. We cannot measure a living thing, just as we cannot measure the water of a spring. Jesus Christ also said,'the foxes have their holes,the birds have their nests but the son of man has nowhere to lay down to rest'.This is the statement of a person who lives in the kingdom of God. Truth or God is a pilgrim. This pilgrimage is from God to God. When human beings are pilgrims God also will be a pilgrim. When human beings settle down they also settle God,settle truth. They build temples, they build houses, philosophical systems, theological systems and thus stagnate truth. For me Jesus had discovered the eternal truth; he became one with the eternal truth; he said I am the way,the truth and the life. He invited everyone to do so. He liberated the truth from its imprisonment and made it alive,dynamic and free. Can we also do the same?

 

[Thief]

I believe that Jesus Christ has said a spiritual truth which is valid for all eternity. It is the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is the transformation of our life into life of God and our actions into actions of God. It is to allow God to work in and through us. Jesus Christ said: the works which I do are not my own but the Father who dwells in me does his works'. He also said, 'the Father and I are one'. This is the original state of human beings, this is the original truth which is valid for all eternity. This truth is more a state of being than a system. It is the experience of one hundred percent love of God and once hundred percent of love of neighbour.Truth is something alive and dynamic. We cannot measure a living thing, just as we cannot measure the water of a spring. Jesus Christ also said,'the foxes have their holes,the birds have their nests but the son of man has nowhere to lay down to rest'.This is the statement of a person who lives in the kingdom of God. Truth or God is a pilgrim. This pilgrimage is from God to God. When human beings are pilgrims God also will be a pilgrim. When human beings settle down they also settle God,settle truth. They build temples, they build houses, philosophical systems, theological systems and thus stagnate truth. For me Jesus had discovered the eternal truth; he became one with the eternal truth; he said I am the way,the truth and the life. He invited everyone to do so. He liberated the truth from its imprisonment and made it alive,dynamic and free. Can we also do the same?

A contradiction....
A truth is as firm as the cornerstone.....it won't be moved.