Jesus and the Problem of Evil

[John Martin]

You said "It [creation] is a manifestation of God." That's pantheism.

to say creation is the manifestation of God is not pantheism: Pantheism literally means pan=everything, theos =God: everything is God. Wikipedia says:
Pantheism is the belief that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God,[1] or that the universe (or nature) is identical with divinity.[2] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal or anthropomorphic god.
I am not saying that the universe is identical with divinity. I believe that there is only one God and creation is not another God. When I say God I mean a reality that is eternal-unchangeable. Creation is not eternal. It has the beginning and the end. Creation is not God but it is the manifestation of God. Hence I am not a pantheist as defined in Wikipedia.

 

[John Martin]

How do you know this?

You can consult the biblical scholars and the development of the scriptures. Not everything is said by Jesus.

 

[Dunemeister]

to say creation is the manifestation of God is not pantheism: Pantheism literally means pan=everything, theos =God: everything is God. Wikipedia says:
Pantheism is the belief that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God,[1] or that the universe (or nature) is identical with divinity.[2] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal or anthropomorphic god.
I am not saying that the universe is identical with divinity. I believe that there is only one God and creation is not another God. When I say God I mean a reality that is eternal-unchangeable. Creation is not eternal. It has the beginning and the end. Creation is not God but it is the manifestation of God. Hence I am not a pantheist as defined in Wikipedia.

You (and Wikipedia) are simply wrong about that. To say that the universe is a manifestation of god is to say that creation is one of god's modes of being. Christ manifests God. No problem there. Creation, though, manifests the glory of God. That's quite a different matter.

That said, you are correct to make a distinction between the uncreated and the created. However you verbalize it, as long as you are clear that there is such a distinction, and that the universe falls in the "created" side and God the "uncreated", we have no real argument.

 

[Dunemeister]

You can consult the biblical scholars and the development of the scriptures. Not everything is said by Jesus.

I'll consult the Fathers and Doctors.

 

[John Martin]

This analogy implies that "God" is not omnipotent. That is to say that "God" is incapable separating the tares from the wheat.

This if fine, if that is your theology. But does not refute the problem of evil. "God" cannot be omnipotent and benevolent. If "God" is not omnipotent then the problem of evil does not apply.

The attributes of God as omnipotent,omniscience and omnipotent create more problem. Yes God is these attributes but how? we do not understand. What I have said does not deny the ompotency of God. God does not need to separate tares from the wheat. It is to bring down God to the level of duality. Evil is like a shadow it does not have an independent existence. When a person comes under a tree the shadow disappears. The omnipotence of God is like that. When we come into the presence of God the shadow,the evil disappears. God does not need to do it. As long as we try to destroy the shadow while walking under the sun our efforts are useless. The way to remove the shadow is to come under the shade of God, that is awakening.

 

[John Martin]

I'll consult the Fathers and Doctors.

if you wish to know the historical development of the gospels consulting the Biblical scholars is helpful. The Fathers and the doctors may give spiritual meanings but not historical development.

 

[Dunemeister]

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.

The main problem with this idea is that the context of the passage does not support it. Nowhere does Jesus mention the issue of the reconciliation of monotheism with the experience of evil.

This is not to say that the Incarnation itself isn't a response to the problem of evil. In fact I think it is. But this parable, unless you remove it from its context, doesn't even remotely address it.

 

[John Martin]

The main problem with this idea is that the context of the passage does not support it. Nowhere does Jesus mention the issue of the reconciliation of monotheism with the experience of evil.

This is not to say that the Incarnation itself isn't a response to the problem of evil. In fact I think it is. But this parable, unless you remove it from its context, doesn't even remotely address it.

We see differently. I respect your views. I have no intention to convince you except to share my views and the reasons for it.
You have no difficulty to accept that Jesus is the son of God and one with God.
My proposition is that everyone has this possibility. The difference is Jesus realized it and others have not realized it. It does mean everyone becomes another God. There is only one God, monotheism. It is like the ray of the Sun realizing that it comes from the Sun and goes back to the Sun. A ray of the Sun does not become another Sun.

 

[Dunemeister]

We see differently. I respect your views. I have no intention to convince you except to share my views and the reasons for it.
You have no difficulty to accept that Jesus is the son of God and one with God.
My proposition is that everyone has this possibility. The difference is Jesus realized it and others have not realized it. It does mean everyone becomes another God. There is only one God, monotheism. It is like the ray of the Sun realizing that it comes from the Sun and goes back to the Sun. A ray of the Sun does not become another Sun.

Alright then, you're back to pantheism and pseudo-gnosticism, one of which is blasphemous, the other of which is heresy. The gnostic side is that the problem that needs to be solved is one of ignorance of a higher (divine) nature.

The Christological and theological problem is that you are using "Son of God" in an unbiblical sense. Jesus is the unique Son of God, one hypostasis of the Trinity, whose nature is uniquely divine. The uncreated hypostasis of the Son took on humanity, and therefore has two natures, although undivided and unconfused. We, on the other hand, have our own hypostases, and we will never take on God's nature. We can become more godlike by participating in the divine energies, but our nature will forever be different from God's. He is uncreated and divine in himself; we are created and may become divine by grace. You seem to be collapsing these distinctions.

Again, the biblical view is not that we are divine by nature, have forgotten that, and must "wake up" and go back to the divine. Rather, we are creaturely by nature, have made pretensions to divinity, thereby excluding ourselves from the divine life and our calling as the image of God. Salvation consists in repentance (implying wrongdoing and owning up to it) and faith (implying believing and living rightly).

 

[savagewind]

Again, the biblical view is not that we are divine by nature, have forgotten that, and must "wake up" and go back to the divine. Rather, we are creaturely by nature, have made pretensions to divinity, thereby excluding ourselves from the divine life and our calling as the image of God. Salvation consists in repentance (implying wrongdoing and owning up to it) and faith (implying believing and living rightly).

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"?

 

[Dunemeister]

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"?

I mean that we are creatures, pure and simple. We have a beginning. We depend on something other than us for our continued existence. We are not immortal by nature. This is a gift.

We are created in the image of God, but we must attain to the likeness of God. We are called to deification, and this would be true even if Adam hadn't sinned.

 

[savagewind]

I mean that we are creatures, pure and simple. We have a beginning. We depend on something other than us for our continued existence. We are not immortal by nature. This is a gift.

We are created in the image of God, but we must attain to the likeness of God. We are called to deification, and this would be true even if Adam hadn't sinned.

OK Thank you. Is your argument with John that he says we become god, immortal? I have not heard him say good means immortal.

 

[Rocky S]

Interesting, although this is very allegorical. Jesus is actually talking about his second advent. And the fate of certain individuals When he returns to the earth. But your outlook on these scripture are interesting and well thought out, and can be applicable.

 

[John Martin]

Interesting, although this is very allegorical. Jesus is actually talking about his second advent. And the fate of certain individuals When he returns to the earth. But your outlook on these scripture are interesting and well thought out, and can be applicable.

Jesus never spoke of his second coming. The idea of second coming of Jesus was the expectation of early Christian, as Jesus ended up facing a death like criminal. It was a kind of failure. So they thought he would come in power. The kingdom of God is experience of God here and now and not somewhere in the future.

 

[Rocky S]

Jesus never spoke of his second coming. The idea of second coming of Jesus was the expectation of early Christian, as Jesus ended up facing a death like criminal. It was a kind of failure. So they thought he would come in power. The kingdom of God is experience of God here and now and not somewhere in the future.

Now before I answer I must say I am not a gnostic or a duelist, so our views on this will differ, but that's ok. But Jesus explained the meaning of this parable, here I'll underline the points of this parable that explains my position on this. Here is what Jesus said: "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one]; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear". I don't know, its pretty clear to me. But then again, I guess you can say I interpret the bible more from a school of Antioch approach then an Alexandrian one, But I am aware of the Gnostic interpretation of this parable, which I happen to disagree with.. Oh and when you say Jesus never spoke of his second coming are you referring to this parable or all of his teachings about his second advent?

 

[Dunemeister]

OK Thank you. Is your argument with John that he says we become god, immortal? I have not heard him say good means immortal.

Well, he says that our problem is that we have "fallen asleep". In our slumber, we have forgotten our divine nature. I'm not sure how else to interpret that other than that humans are divine by nature. However, Christianity affirms that God alone is divine by nature. Salvation in Christianity is a matter of people acquiring the Holy Spirit, becoming deified by grace. We can indeed become God by grace, but we are not divine by nature.

 

[savagewind]

Well, he says that our problem is that we have "fallen asleep". In our slumber, we have forgotten our divine nature. I'm not sure how else to interpret that other than that humans are divine by nature. However, Christianity affirms that God alone is divine by nature. Salvation in Christianity is a matter of people acquiring the Holy Spirit, becoming deified by grace. We can indeed become God by grace, but we are not divine by nature.

I agree with you. But "our divine nature" to me just means we are able to do the will of God The Divine. Even though most people are able to do God's will few do imo. I think it's obvious. Why? It is because their divine nature is asleep.

 

[John Martin]

I agree with you. But "our divine nature" to me just means we are able to do the will of God The Divine. Even though most people are able to do God's will few do imo. I think it's obvious. Why? It is because their divine nature is asleep.

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.

 

[savagewind]

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.

That is interesting. What does it mean "If we are awakened then no discussion is necessary." We are discussing on RF. I tend to agree it is not necessary but I am enjoying it. Does it mean I am asleep I wonder? It's possible.

 

[Dunemeister]

I agree with you. But "our divine nature" to me just means we are able to do the will of God The Divine. Even though most people are able to do God's will few do imo. I think it's obvious. Why? It is because their divine nature is asleep.

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.