This was sent me last week:
Dear John,
I am a secular humanist who practices Buddhism. I am writing to you because I appreciate your writings regarding people like me who do not follow Jesus. I would like to share some of my history with you, and explain why I no longer follow god.
When my son was nine years old, he was raped by his best friend and his best friend’s parents. All together. All in one night. He was drugged, and when he woke up in the middle of being raped, a gun was held to his head. He was told that both he and I would die if he told anyone, or attempted to stop himself from being raped.
Anyone who allows that to happen to a nine-year-old boy, or who has foreknowledge of such an event and does not stop it, is evil, and deserves no more respect than the actual perpetrators.
I had no idea this had happened at all. My son hid it from me because he was in fear for my life.
My son is now sixteen years old, and deeply troubled. He physically lashes out; his behavior became increasingly sexual and inappropriate. Finally, he tried to harm himself. He was admitted to a mental hospital, and has bounced from hospital to hospital ever since. He hasn’t been able to make it on the outside for more than a couple months at a time.
I had always taken my son to church. I prayed over him every night; I read my bible daily (and knew it well). I believed and trusted god with my own life—and especially with my son’s life, since he was born three months early. I dedicated him to god while they held him nearby the operating table so I could see him before they whisked him off to the neonatal intensive care unit.
I also believed god through my first (very young, very brief) marriage, and also throughout my second marriage to a philandering preacher’s son, who beat me and my son, as his father had done to his mother and children before him.
With regards to this second marriage, every single leader of my church—from the head pastor, to associate pastors, to bible study leaders, and all the way down—told me to stick it out. One church leader told me that I should “pray the bruises away,” literally. They said that. And I heard this exact same thing from the leaders of more than one church, because we moved a couple times.
So those are the big reasons why I no longer follow god. I’d rather burn for eternity than follow someone who would allow all this.
Since leaving God behind I have less guilt, and have been building a more solid and secure life for myself. It is hard sometimes to not be able to place all my burdens on Jesus; it would be nice to have someone else carry them for a while. But he couldn’t help my son, so he certainly cannot help me. I believe it is a matter of self-delusion to find peace from faith; I find the same peace nowadays when I practice meditation, which involves no deity.
The little reasons I don’t follow god? They are all ones I find in your articles: the inconsistency of believers, the greed, the judgmentalism. The hate spewed by followers of Christ—or followers of any religion, really—seems to be poisoning the world.
I hope you will take the time to respond to this. I would be interested in your thoughts. Thanks for reading.
Dear woman who has suffered so much I barely know how or where to start with this:
It means more than I can possibly say that you trust me enough to bring this to me. It’s a genuine honor. Thank you for it.
You amaze me. You have ultimately responded to the morass of dark pain that has been so much of your life by lighting your own way out of it. That is absolutely inspiring.
Instead of staying beaten, as most anyone would, you’re rejuvenating. You’re meditating. From all through which you’ve thought and fought you’ve forged an actual, practical philosophy. So I cannot be in anything but sheer awe of your strength.
That said, I pray that you will not find too offensive my saying this: God did not harm your poor child. God did not beat you. God did not tell you to pray your bruises away.
It was not God who did those things. It was ignorant, vile people.
Your complaint against God is that he didn’t stop those ignorant, vile people from doing the ignorant, vile things they did.
What you are in essence asking about God is what throughout time people have always asked about God: Why does he allow evil to exist?
And that excellent simple question has an excellent, simple answer: God allows people to do whatever horrible, vile, evil things they want to, because to do otherwise would be to violate people’s free will, which is something that God’s love for all people absolutely prevents him from doing.
God gave us free will. And he will not take it from us. And we do not want him to take it from us. Free will is what defines us. It’s our most precious attribute. Without free will we are at best animals, and at worst mindless automatons.
God gave us our free will because he wants us fully independent. He so loves us, in other words, that he gave us the power to reject him. That is love, and full respect. We would not want, or stand for, anything less.
The great downside of free will is that it grants each and every one of us the capability of violating the free will of anyone weaker than ourselves. That’s a despicable thing to do, of course: it is what crime is. Ultimately all crime boils down to one person exercising their free will to in some way override the free will of another—which we all understand as such an egregious thing to do that we punish the perpetrator of such a violation by in turn removing, via imprisonment, their free will.
Life is about the exchange and negotiation of relative free wills.
The irreducible truth is that right now, if I want to, I can beat my wife. She is weaker than I; she could not stop me from doing that. I am free to commit that atrocity.
What you would wish is for God to stop me from doing that, to stay my hand. You wish for God to look down, see that I am about to strike my wife, and somehow arrest that action: freeze me in mid-motion, paralyze my arm, instantly replace my crazed fury with peaceful thoughts and feelings.
You want God to in some way directly and purposefully violate my free will. You essentially and explicitly want me, at God’s will, to at that moment transform into God’s puppet.
But the truth is that you do not, in fact, want that. Because you would not want God to also be able to at will transform you into his mindless, will-free puppet. Ultimately you would insist for me what you certainly insist upon for yourself: absolute freedom.
Every blessing carries its own curse. The blessing of free will is the curse of human evil. The two are inseparable. That cannot change.
If you want will that is truly free—if you want everyone to have the kind of autonomy you certainly desire for yourself—then you want stronger people to be able to victimize weaker people. I know that feels pretty distinctly counterintuitive—but, if you think about it, that is where you arrive. It is where we all arrive. No human being wants a God who is constantly busy monitoring their every action and thought, and preventing or suddenly changing those which he feels cross the line between good and evil, between right and wrong, between acceptable and unacceptable.
None of wants to exist on a slope so weird, slippery, random, and out of control. Not you. Not me. Not anyone. We don’t want God interfering with our lives and identity that way. And we can’t wish for others what we don’t want for ourselves.
I’d be the last person in the world to blame you for rejecting God. But the hard truth remains that it was not God who betrayed you. It was people. And God did not stop those people from committing their horrible transgressions against you and your son for the same reason he did not stop you from recovering from those transgressions in the valiant, ennobling way you have. With all my heart I hope that the damage done your son is in time similarly undone.
Below is a video about this very matter that I once wrote and produced via the free online tools available at xtranormal.com. (When you make these things, you have no control over the look of your chosen setting, character, or character’s voice—and you have few enough choices for either those. So you just … do what you can.)
Again, I’m profoundly humbled and honored that you wrote and allowed me to share in this manner your gut-wrenching and ultimately inspiring story. As I say, I’ve zero interest in trying to turn you into a Christian. But, man, I know that if I were Christ, I’d want nothing more than to have on my team someone of your quality, drive, and integrity. I don’t know much about much, but I’m certain of one thing: God would love to have you back.
As, most certainly, would I. Please write me again sometime, and tell me how you and your son are doing. In the meantime all my love to you, and thanks again.
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 491 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 … 4 5 6
John, your argument used to make perfect sense to me. It was, in fact, my argument to that very question. But I have to say that age and experience has really left that argument dry and cold to me. The more I think about it, the less sense it makes.
Why is it good and true for me to stop the murder of a child, but a violation of our sacred ‘free-will’ for God to do the same? How can an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God have less moral agency than I? Did Jesus violate the free will of those who would stone the adulteress? Why is that different from God staying the hand of the murderer?
But, honestly and sincerely, what upset me most in your response was your assertion that this is a simple question with a simple answer. It is perhaps the most troubling and profound question and answer for those who have experienced the senseless abuse or death of a child. There is nothing simple about it.
In the end, it may be a profound Mystery why God does not intervene, but the once cerebral and sublime answer of “Free will!” just doesn’t seem so cerebral and sublime to me anymore. It seems more like a cop out.
Okay. All I can say (I guess) is that I can’t understand how you can’t understand what a failure of logic it is to go from “I should stop one evil act’ to “God should stop all evil acts.” Those … aren’t even close to comparable propositions.
I can’t help that it’s not complicated—nor that people prefer to insist that it is.
Those questions I ask above are sincere. They really do trouble me.
I know you are talking “big picture” here. And maybe in the Great Scheme of Things God allows these things to happen for a Greater Good. But it doesn’t change the fact that God allows these things to happen, even if in the end it _is_ for the Greater Good. He chooses to not intervene or he is somehow incapable of doing so. And that is . . . troubling.
Forgive the imperfect metaphors, but it’s like the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or Churchill’s decision to not act on intelligence about the imminent bombing of an English town in order to keep secret the knowledge that we’d broken the German Enigma codes. You could say those were simple decisions that in the end saved millions of lives that otherwise would have perished via prolonged warfare. And they were simple in a cold, calculating way. Lives had to be sacrificed for the greater good. Tough decisions that had to be made.
But still, those decisions are troubling, doubly so for those whose lives were sacrificed with neither their knowledge nor consent.
In much the same way we live in a fallen world where, by the ‘free will is supreme’ argument, God has decided that ‘free will’ is so important that he will allow a child to be brutally abused or killed rather than halt the hand of the abuser and thus violate his free will. Maybe it is right to do so. Maybe in the end it leads to less suffering over all in the world, or brings the Kingdom even quicker than it otherwise would. Maybe it really is that simple, though it doesn’t seem so to me.
But it is also troubling, and deeply so.
This isn’t an intellectual exercise for me, John. For me, it’s not even about free will. A few years ago I witnessed the slow, agonizing death of a child with Type 1 Spinal Muscular Atrophy. If you are unfamiliar with SMA1, I’ll keep it short: It’s a death sentence. There are no miracle SMA babies. They all die, usually before age two unless drastic external measures like permanent tracheotomies, breathing machines, or iron lungs. Ollie was diagnosed at three months and I watched and cared for him with his parents as his muscles withered away, unable to talk, unable to cough, unable to muster the strength to breathe, slowly suffocating until he died a day before his first birthday, smothered by his own body.
God can heal physical ailments. It’s right there in the Bible. Jesus healed the lame, cured the leper, made the blind to see. But he didn’t heal that poor little beautiful boy. Maybe there is are good intellectual, theological arguments for why God, having the ability to heal, chose not to.
But I am deeply troubled by the answers, however simple or right they may be.
Hi David.
You have some great questions.
Unfortunately there are no answers for them here on Earth.
There are only opinions.
I speak for myself and no one else. But this works reasonably well for me.
1. Jesus of Nazareth, the man, was the exemplification of divine love.
2. The Bible is a book of stories some of which were about Jesus.
3. The world is harsh and the only way to get through with a modicum of sanity is to be loving and be loved, as Jesus taught.
Jesus lived love. Jesus spoke love and acted loving.
Jesus said, “Everything I do, you will do and more.”
Which to me means that I am to be more loving.
A human being whose intention is to be loving is the pinnacle of what Jesus lived and taught.
That is what we can be. That is all we can do.
Any supernatural descriptions of what Jesus did are the wishful imaginings of people who worship superficial superheroes.
Jesus was a real hero. A heroic man who put his fellow humans above money, power, fame and all else that gets in the way of real loving relationships.
That’s my opinion.
It might be worth no more than anyone elses. But it gets me through.
Just remember that an opinion printed in a very old book is still an opinion.
There is no magic in books. But there is love in human beings.
Thanks, Will.
It IS troubling, and I don’t think anyone knows the answer, not even John. At least I know I don’t find his answer satisfying, personally, and that I’m not alone in that.
One thing I do know, though, is that you don’t get in trouble for asking the question. Read Ecclesiastes. Read the Psalms. People before you have asked the same questions, and instead of sweeping them under the carpet or brushing them off with pat answers, the wise people who wrote the Bible put the questions in there, unanswered. We’re told that David was one of God’s favorite people, and David bitched at God all the time. “Why, God? What’s wrong with you? Answer me. My life sucks.”
So don’t be afraid to ask. It doesn’t make you a heretic. It doesn’t make God hate you.
It’s true people have said they don’t find my answer for the theodicy “satisfying.” But, in any way that’s logically consistent, they never seem able to quite say why. It just doesn’t feel right, so they think it must be wrong. But no one’s ever articulated a clear logical flaw in my reasoning on this matter. I’ve given a very serious answer to a very serious problem. “I don’t find that answer satisfying” isn’t a serious response to that answer.
Isn’t it? A God who leaves people unsatisfied is a problem.
I think you’ve been answered logically, and more than once. Looking at a world in which people are crushed by falling rocks and then saying that’s not God’s fault, it’s mankind’s fault for not inventing the rock-shield fast enough, well, it’s far out there at best. Your answer about free will is a fine answer as far as human sin is concerned. Not so much the pain that comes from nature.
A God who leaves some people unsatisfied isn’t a problem: it’s an inevitability.
And it’s funny how casually you toss out your acknowledgment that my answer does, in fact, comprehensively address the problem of human sin. That’s one massive chunk of resolution.
(And point me to this “logical answer” you say I should have seen more than once. I’m comfortable saying it’s not there, but would happily be shown differently. I believe that what we’ll find is that we have radically different ideas—well, clearly we do—about what qualifies as logical.)
(Apologies for the length. I can’t seem to use one word when three will do.)
When I say I don’t find your argument satisfying, I don’t mean that it “just doesn’t feel right’.* I mean that I find the argument insufficient. An answer can be logical and yet inadequate.
Maybe I can illustrate my misgivings with it.
Take this hypothesis. Let’s say a mugger is about to stab a woman and one of two things happens.
1. A policeman happens by, rushes in, and grabs the mugger’s arm, preventing him from stabbing the woman.
2. God grabs the mugger’s arm, preventing him from stabbing the woman.
Why is the first a good and noble thing, but the second a horrible violation of the mugger’s free will?
Why does the first place all the value on the freedom and life of the victim, but the second turn the mugger into an ‘automaton’?
Why is the policeman not violating the mugger’s free will? He could, after all, allow the woman to be stabbed and then arrest and punish the mugger. But we recoil at that thought, don’t we? And why shouldn’t we when/if God does the same?
Or take another hypothetical: A man makes a slave of another human being, locking her in a cage, and breaking her will with physical and psychological abuse.
Why is it a greater evil for God to violate the slaver’s free will by halting his violation of the free will of the slave?
Can you see why I don’t find your argument sufficient? It is because that argument is missing something. What it is, I don’t know. Maybe that missing piece is a Mystery.
* – I will refrain from taking offense at you calling my perspective “unserious” and a matter of ‘feelings’. My perspective may be mistaken or flat-out wrong, but it is not held lightly or without actual reason. You should be careful of dismissing people who have serious trouble with your answer to this question, as many of them have very real and personal reasons for doing so. You could easily cause hurt. Likewise, I wish to apologize for calling your argument a ‘cop-out’ earlier. I did not mean it personally, but it was dismissive. I should not have done so.
I’m finding it a little awkward to be at such loggerheads with you. I know you don’t know me from Adam, but I’ve been reading you for awhile and generally I’m right on board with 99% of what you write. I consider you an ally, just so you know. Not an adversary.
David: All I can say is that within this piece I’ve already answered, very specifically, the exact questions you’ve here posed. I don’t know how to say this without sounding dismissive or … rude, or whatever, but you either didn’t read this piece, or you didn’t read it carefully enough. But it must be one of those two things, because you keep asking me questions I’ve already answered, in very clear language, in the piece. Which leaves me with virtually nothing more to say or add. If you were addressing a concern, or had a question, that I hadn’t already answered in this piece, we have a place we could go. But right now you’re just … continuing to ask me for directions to a place to which I’ve already drawn you a pretty simple map. And pointed. And told you exactly how to get there.
So now I’m just … left without words. There is no “mystery” here. At all.
I mean … you can try this piece, if you’d care to: http://johnshore.com/2007/07/10/evil-surprise-it%E2%80%99s-a-good-thing/
but it’s basically the same thing I’ve said here.
I just can’t go anywhere once you’ve …. again equated one person stopping one evil act from God stopping all humans, forever, from ever having any even slightly negative thought or impression. Again framing your question as you have is again a very definite, manifest, overt, humongous, utter failure of, as you put it, actual reason. If you can’t see why that is—and can’t see how within the piece I’ve already explained why that is—then … I’m afraid I’m out.
But I do of course absolutely wish you the best of luck working this problem out for yourself.
John,
I understand the basics of your argument, I just think they are flawed. With all due respect, I honestly don’t think you’ve answered my question.
Why is the man who stops the knife not violating the knife-wielder’s free will? Or if he is, why is that a bad thing? Or if it isn’t, what is it about God doing the exact same thing that makes it a bad thing?
You say you have the power to beat your wife, and you wouldn’t want God to stop you. But why wouldn’t you want God to stop you from hitting your wife? Why would you resent that more than, say, your brother reaching out and grabbing your wrist before you can land the blow? How does that violate your will any less?
In that article you linked, you say “The only way for God to stop people from doing evil would be to stop people from ever thinking about doing evil.”
But that’s not true, anymore than your brother grabbing your wrist makes you stop thinking about the evil you were about to do to your hypothetical wife. It just stopped you from doing the evil. Your thoughts are still your own.
You’re making the assumption that God would have to mind control you to stop evil from being done. But that isn’t the case.
When you stop your son from biting your daughter, are you treating them like mindless zombies? When you refuse to give your drunk friend his car keys, are you treating him like an automaton?
Asking “Why doesn’t God stop evil?” is not the same as asking “Why doesn’t God turn all humans into mindless zombies?” That is, in my opinion, a false assertion.
I understand if you’ve tired of the argument. We do seem to be going around in circles. Best of luck to you as well.
The difference in your hypothetical situation is that the policeman is a finite human being, only capable of being in one place at one time. He has limited ability to intervene – and there is no guarantee that he will always be able to effectively intervene. While his intervention interrupts one instance of the expression of one person’s free will, and does not affect anyone else’s free will. He also didn’t give the mugger his free will in the first place.
God, however, not only gave us our free will in the first place, He is present everywhere, all the time, and has absolute power to over-ride that free will. If we want God to over-ride the mugger’s free will, we have to be prepared for our own free will to be over-ridden as well – at any time, under any circumstances. God sees our intentions and heart attitudes, not just our actions, and in order to allow us to be free to make our own choices He does not violate our free will – however much He wants us to always make good choices.
I see what your saying, but I am troubled by the implications.
(Forgive me if I am mischaracterizing your words.)
This argument seems to imply that because the policeman can cannot stop all muggers, and because he has an imperfect (or finite) knowledge of good and evil, therefore it is right and proper to stop this one mugger (or any amount of muggers, I assume, up to [all muggers - 1]
.
God, however, has perfect knowledge of good and evil and the ability to stop all muggers from stabbing their victims if he so chose. In addition, can also easily see the intentions written on all hearts, muggers and victims alike. And therefore it is wrong for him to stop even one.
I don’t know about you, but this seems almost a reversal of what should be. Shouldn’t a more perfect understanding of good and evil, the power to stop said evil, and the ability to read even the intentions behind those who commit evil, give more ethical responsibility to intervene, not less? Who is more likely to take the precise action needed to see that both mugger and victim come out of this situation unhurt?
The argument “Free Will Must Trump All” seems to me to be based on the fear of Big Brother, of a powerful human entity watching our every move and ruling over us based on their own imperfect understanding of what is good and what is evil, biased by their own selfishness and greed. I myself fear such a thing. There is no human agency that should be granted such power.
But God is not human, and his understanding is not imperfect, and there is not selfishness nor greed in him. Why then should we fear his hand at stopping us from doing evil? Why should the fear of the loss of our autonomy to do evil (actual objective evil) to another trump the well being (and free will) of the innocent to whom that evil is done?
Finally, the last distinction you make is that God gave the mugger his free will, not the policeman. I’m not sure how that matters except in a theoretical sense that if God stops the mugger, he’s taking his gift back, at least temporarily. But if you give a man a gun to do with as he pleases, and then he immediately turns and points it at another (intentionally or unintentionally), is it wrong of you to intervene and try to take the gun from his grasp?
Allie, Rocks falling and crushing people happen. Bad things happen. Things we don’t want to have happen. People we love get sick and die. That’s life. That’s reality. That’s how the world works. We do much to further our sense of peace and joy in this life when we stop struggling against accepting these realities.
Change what we can. Accept what we cannot. Have the wisdom to know the difference does in fact lead to serenity.
I’ve always found it prudent to be wary of people who suggest that complex moral problems have ‘simple’ solutions. It usually indicates a failure of intelligence or an ulterior and questionable motive.
Complicate away, then.
For the record. I don’t think John has ulterior or questionable motives. I think he honestly believes what he says and it is my opinion that we are just having difficulty explaining things to each other. We are coming in at right angles to the other’s point of view and having difficulty adjusting to see what the other sees.
I also think John is a smart fellow and a heck of a nice guy.
“Did Jesus violate the free will of those who would stone the adulteress?”
I think that it’s important to note here that Jesus didn’t violate the free will of those who intended to stone the adulteress. What he did was to shame them out of it by reminding them of their own sin.
I don’t know what this means (if anything) in the larger context of the discussion, but I do think that it’s important to note.
I think that’s a great insight! And I think He is still doing the same thing – the Bible is full of God telling us that what He wants is mercy, not sacrifice; instructing us to break the yoke of oppression and set the captive free; telling us that what He requires is for us to do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with Him. To feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, tend to the sick, visit the lonely. Jesus lived this out as our example to model our own lives after. IF everyone on the planet was living out His example, the world would be a better place – the vulnerable would be protected. WE are the weak link when we DON’T live according to His ways.
Love it, vj!
That is a very good insight. Thank you for the clarification.
But here’s a question for you. What if the shaming had not worked? What if they had insisted on stoning? Would Jesus have done nothing? Surely not! Surely he would have stood between her and the stones, or raised her from the dead afterwards, or perhaps even have sat down beside her and died with her, making that the Passion rather then the crucifixion.
But what if he hadn’t? What if he had said, “I love this woman with all my heart, but I will not stop you from killing her because that would violate your free will,” and then allowed it to happen?
Because that is what the ‘free will trumps all’ argument attempts to justify today. God loves us all and has the power to stop evil being done, but chooses not to in order not to violate the free will of the evildoer.
It’s the idea of the three qualities of the traditional Christian God that I cannot reconcile. All powerful, all knowing, all loving. It seems to me in this fallen world of floods and earthquakes and genocide and holocaust that you can only pick two.
To be at peace, I have chosen the last two. God knows all and loves all, but for whatever reason, is incapable of intervening directly in this world. He requires us to be his hands and feet, to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, tend the sick, and visit the imprisoned. For whatever reason, he cannot spare us from suffering and sorrow, but is with us in both until the very end.
I think we tend to loose sight of God’s eternal perspective – we want everything to be sunshine and roses for everyone, right here and now. I believe that God also wants us to have sunshine and roses, but, for reasons that we cannot yet understand, we don’t always get the happy ending in this life. But, there is a life to come, which will be eternal, and once we are living that life then the pain and suffering we have endured here will both make sense and fade into insignificance. That, for me, is the hope I have in Christ.
And yes, you are quite right that God uses us as His hands and feet – but I think that is because He chooses to give us the joy of loving and serving Him and our fellow humans, rather than because He is *unable* to intervene.
I love and appreciate your perspective vj, and I hope that you are right, that when we reach the eternal it will all make sense.
But until then, I will keep asking the questions and looking for the answers.
I know you did not mean to be dismissive, but the sunshine and roses comment felt that way a bit to me. I’m not asking for sunshine and roses for everyone, right here right now. I’m asking for less suffering and torment, or at least a better reason for why it happens than “free will.” I believe it’s a false dichotomy to think it’s either suffer the child to die of a horrible disease or live in a hallmark card. There is a huge range between those two poles.
David wrote; “What if they had insisted on stoning? Would Jesus have done nothing? Surely not! Surely he would have stood between her and the stones, or raised her from the dead afterwards, or perhaps even have sat down beside her and died with her, making that the Passion rather then the crucifixion. ”
David, let us not forget that thousands of prostitutes have been murdered by self-righteous mobs. Let us not forget that hundreds of thousands, nay millions of innocent women and men have been tortured and murdered and even burned alive by people who claimed they were doing God’s will. Their deaths were not prevented. Their suffering was real.
There is no “what if”.
There is only what has happened and what continues to happen.
God does not step in. People suffer and die everyday. Bad things happen.
How shorted sighted of us to read a story about one prostitute who was saved from a mob by one man and extrapolate that to mean that God saves people.
Ninety nine people die in an accident and one survives. To say that one was saved by God is not only foolish but cruel to the loved ones of the ninety nine who God didn’t save.
Can anyone present a person who has had 150 birthdays, because they were “saved by God” from old age? No. Of course not.
Sooner or later everyone dies. Whether there is anything beyond physical existence is debatable. I’m certainly open to that possibility.
As to what God does or doesn’t do and what life is or isn’t, try The Book Of Ecclesiastes. You may find a whole new spin on the discussion.
Ecclesiastes 9
A Common Destiny for All
1 So I reflected on all this and concluded that the righteous and the wise and what they do are in God’s hands, but no one knows whether love or hate awaits them. 2 All share a common destiny—the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad,[a] the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not.
As it is with the good,
so with the sinful;
as it is with those who take oaths,
so with those who are afraid to take them.
3 This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of people, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead. 4 Anyone who is among the living has hope[b]—even a live dog is better off than a dead lion!
5 For the living know that they will die,
but the dead know nothing;
they have no further reward,
and even their name is forgotten.
6 Their love, their hate
and their jealousy have long since vanished;
never again will they have a part
in anything that happens under the sun.
7 Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God has already approved what you do. 8 Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. 9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun—all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. 10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.
Does that explain everything? Not really.
There may be no answer that is satisfying to us because we are all too quick to reject what we don’t want to hear. Because that is what we humans do.
When I read things like this the only thing that makes me able to keep believing sometimes is Jesus. He suffered the intense pain of humanity – humiliated, tortured, beaten nearly to death, murdered. God is real. He does care. Jesus is what it all comes back to; without Him I’d just go jump off a cliff at the horror of it all.
I have lived this mother’s pain. I have felt the guilt of not recognizing the signs that one of our five adopted children – who had not been properly nurtured while in a Korean orphanage his first four years of life – would become a sociopath – incapable of empathy – compassion – love. As a 14 year old he sexually molested our 6 year old daughter for 8 months. We all mistook his sudden attention to her as sincere binding. No, he was grooming her her. Fortunately the vile matter was discovered – we had him arrested in order to obtain treatment – only way. He committed suicide at age 21 – was estranged not by us but by his choice. At first i asked how did this happen – I, trained physician – missed the signs. was reassured by psychologists and others there was no way of seeing the evil – I/we were too close. Through it all, I asked for a reason from my God but never blamed him. Perhaps because my Faith has brought me to realize that good and evil exist in our world. It is not God’s plan for harm to come to any one of us. Life happens – good & bad. In 2006 my 21 year old daughter died tragically; my son committed suicide in 2010 at 23 9the pedophile0. I have been totally rejected for “coming out” to my wife of 38 years – 3 years ago…my son made life hell for me – gradually edged out of my home because he would not accept my wife & I living together – my remaining a celibate gay man pursuing ordination as a Catholic deacon – would sublimate my gayness in service to the Church. He assaulted me on Church grounds and because of “appearances” I was dismissed and excluded from my ministries – having done nothing wrong. This lead to finding an accepting LGBT home Catholic Church where de facto I serve as a deacon to my gay brothers & sisters. I live separately – now happily partnered – my church would say I am inherently disordered and an adulterer – but in my heart – the Holy Spirit has brought me peace and happiness. No person, no institutional Church is my judge. To this Mother I would say – seek the comfort you will find in accepting what has happened – moving on – supporting your son – there is hope – and no matter how terrible this tragedy appears – healing is possible for both of you. You must first be open to the graces which a loving Father will impart to you. Blame Him – no…even though He understands and does not reject you. But it is time to place the blame on those warped persons who perpetrated this vile deed while still praying for them to realize what they have done – this is a form of forgiving them, though you will never forget. But anger and hatred for them will only consume you both – bring not peace. I know. Namaste.
People always talk about “Why doesn’t God stop this” as if there is an obvious line to what God should stop, and it’s always other people’s problems.
Okay, God should stop things like the Holocaust, or those people raping the woman’s son.
Should God stop those bankers who caused the economic collapse? At what level should he stop them? how should he stop them? If the bankers were engaged in something with society, should God stop society?
Does God get to stop you from speeding? How about eating things that are unhealthy for you? Does God get to make you exercise, since we all recognize that exercise is necessary to healthy living, but few of us actually do it?
Can God stop you from watching something that will put negative thoughts in your head?
Does God get to make you hold the door for people, or pick up trash somebody left on the floor?
Where does it stop?
People act as if there’s an obvious limit to what God should and shouldn’t be involved with. But when Jesus came here, He said that those who followed Him would have true life, and they would behave through a matrix of unconditional love toward those around them, even those who tormented them.
We seem to want God to stop the unconditional things without us having to love anybody who isn’t nice to us. We keep taking ourselves out of the equation. It’s God’s fault, it’s God’s problem, we’re just innocent bystanders.
But God says that no, we’re actually part of the problem, and we have to participate. If we refuse to, then the world will continue working as it does.
I don’t think anyone’s denying that we humans are part of the problem. At least I’m not. I do think that we humans are ultimately the ones who do horrible things. Furthermore, there is a difference between someone not picking up the trash and someone allowing a group of people to be murdered and slaughtered. People look down not only on governments that perpetrate such horrible crimes, but also on those who simply watch and do nothing. in regards to the holocaust, people were disgusted not only by the actions of the Nazis, but also by the fact that a large number of Germans claimed ignorance and did nothing. And to be fair, we all do that to a certain extent. Which is not right and which we all need to struggle with to become more aware of what evils are going on in the world and do what we can to stop it. with that being said, I do not like a theology that seems to give “god” a free pass to sit around and do nothing. we are rightly disgusted when we or others sit around not doing anything, for me it is only natural that people be disgusted at the formation of a theology that says the same thing. Especially when one holds to other aspects of theology that say, “god is all knowing, and all powerful.”
Humans do horrible things, however, I personally believe that theology says more about the humans who follow it then it does about any deity. But that’s just my two cents.
I accept the possibility that God – or whatever concept of the Ultimate Reality we have – just doesn’t work that way. Todd speaks the truth. Here’s the earth with humanity on it. Either do or do not. There is no try. We all have the capacity for good and for evil within us. The one that grows is the one we feed. Chose to do good. Even in the face of evil as Jesus said: “Do not return evil with evil, but overcome evil with good.” If you’re searching for “The Meaning of Life” that’s it right there. That piece of wisdom is what turns the ship around.
We’ve been given all the tools we need to live in peace with one another, including the gift of each other. We continue to fail to use them. That’s on us.
“I do think that we humans are ultimately the ones who do horrible things.”
By the most liberal of estimates, the Holocaust may have claimed the lives of around 17 million souls.
By the most conservative of estimates, the Black Death claimed over 75 million.
The attacks of September 11, 2001, took the lives of 2,977 victims
The tsunami of December 26, 2004, killed over 230,000.
Need I go on, because frankly looking up the statistics is kinda depressing?
Ahh … reason. Thank you.
How is this reason? First it gives the impression that those killed in hurricanes, earthquakes, etc are not really that important. Secondly to compare the black death and the holocaust is not really historically accurate since at that time of the black death, the human population was a lot smaller than it was during the 1930s and the 1940s. Thirdly it reduces humanity to numbers. Well natural disasters “only” kill this many people, but human evil does this.
Now I know people disagree with me, that’s fine. I think it is fascinating how many different points of view there are to this issue. I may think that theology is not very compassionate but others will argue that it is the perfect example of compassion. I may think it is unreasonable, others may think my position is unreasonable.
I don’t think there is one answer to this. In fact I don’t think one answer is more “truthful” than the other, since all points of view about God, including mine are based on one’s interpretation and biases. I just think that there are some answers that appeal to certain groups of people more. For some the free will argument really appeals to them. That’s great. For others, not so much.
I’m just trying to point out why some people find this theology not really comforting.
Naiomi, John’s reply is in response to Todd’s. That’s how the nesting works, so that might help clear that up a bit.
I’m having trouble following your logic in the next part of your note, but perhaps it will help to know that I don’t find the free will argument comforting either, which is why many of us offered other words of comfort to the letter writer. The trouble is John is right. We have free will. Todd’s response is a reasoned, rational one. That we want God to swoop in and save us from harm is natural. That we don’t want God to inflict us with boils because we broke a rule or get swallowed by a fish because we chose to go to the wrong city is natural. That we can’t see how we must take responsibility for our own human actions and how they have ripple effects across all of humanity and how we are all connected is also natural. And that we wish to assign blame for natural disasters because of our collective grief from human suffering rather than accepting that storms and suffering exists as an unavoidable state in this world is also natural. That we search for answers for reasons why is natural.
Living in reality is one of our highest callings as human beings. May it be so that we all have eyes to see.
But my whole point of view is that to me, personally it does not make sense for God to be given a free pass in abstaining from preventing evil, when we would rightly condemn other humans from doing the same. I don’t see this as a matter of free will or For example, if I stopped someone from murdering a child, am I impeding the other person’s free will? And if I am, which is more important the individual’s free will or protecting the child?
I also am not negating human responsibility. I am just calling for a different interpretation of the traditional (western) understanding of God and the nature of free will. In my mind how one views God, impacts how we treat others. Like I said before, I think theology says more about human nature than it does about the divine.
and I agree, I don’t think that people should negate their responsibility for the evil that goes on in the world. I just feel as if there has to be a different way of understanding the divine and suffering instead of saying either, “God has to get involved in every single thing and humans do not need to take responsibility for their actions” or “well we have free will and God does not want to mess with that.” I feel as if both are extremes. I think that there as to be a middle way somewhere… I don’t know if this is making sense
Now there are alternative theologies that I am looking at to answer this question of suffering, God’s place in it, and and humanity’s place in it.
Also the second part of my statement was a response to the I the feeling I was getting that some people were feeling defensive and offended by my questioning of free will. I didn’t want to give that impression that I’m like, “well I’m right and you all suck.” But that’s jut me. Sometimes I go to one extreme and am rude and other times I am super apologetic.
But anyway. Thanks for the responses and the discussion. I am still trying to figure out what I believe about this whole free will, human responsibility, God’s responsibility etc. So you gave me a lot to think about. and sorry if I was confusing/didn’t always make sense at times.
Although there is indeed no clear point as for where exactly God “should” (or seemingly so) draw the line and intervene, the issue of where it ought to be is a wholly separate debate from that regarding the question of whether there should be such a line drawn anywhere at all, or rather a more anarchic state of affairs.
You ask, “Where does it stop,” as if to invoke a slippery-slope argument. But that only applies if the gradation is indeed slippery, and the immutable law of God—whatever it may be—surely is sticky as hell (pun intended): so it stops wherever in the hell God wants it to.
That said, I do believe there is a deep, deep connection between the problem of the existence of evil and the problem of—at least, as with that of the existence of evil, quite a difficulty, as you suggest, for man (woman included) to truly come to grips with—the existence of love.
I concur with those who have issues with the free will argument. To me it just boggles my mind that we can let “God” off the hook for not intervening when any human being would rightly be condemned (unless of course they are a celebrity, but that is another issue) for not intervening and stopping a horrible event from happening if they had the power to do so. Some will argue, “well God’s ways are higher than our ways” which to me appears to be nothing more than a justification for a deity that if he/she exists choose not to intervene during the most heinous crimes. To me it is not about free will, this about horrible situations happening and the traditional understandings of God not really providing a satisfactory answer. Personally, saying that God does not intervene because of free-will, sounds like a defense/excuse for a deity that for whatever reasons chooses not to get involved. After the Holocaust, Jewish theologians struggled with how that horrifying event impacted how they viewed and understand God. They wrestled and came to a variety of different conclusions with some going so far as to maintain that God is not all-powerful. They struggled and that event, has impacted Jewish theology (understandably so.)
My issue with the free-will argument is that to me, it shuts down that struggle and provides and pat and unsatisfactory answer. (This is just me. no offense to those who subscribe to it). It is also particularly confusing when some who ascribe to that free will argument also believe that God healed their children, or that God intervened in a certain event in their life, for example they had a feeling that they should take a different exit or go to work late and as a result they avoided a catastrophe. The question then becomes, “why did God get involved in that event, and not others?” Not to mention that if one subscribes to the understanding that God sent Jesus to die for our sins, one has to wonder, why did he decide to get involved then? (Atonement and the numerous surrounding theologies are also fascinating to explore)
I don’t think that there is an answer as to if there is a Deity, why he/she does not get involved. In fact, any answer I think would be incomplete and unsatisfactory. I think the struggle and conflict is important. I think trying to wrestle with how we understand God and what our theology (if we have one) says about ourselves (many times, I argue, our beliefs around God say more about who we are as individuals and what we value than what it says about “God.”) I guess this is my long winded way of saying, I am weary of answers, especially answers that seem to dismiss or nullify any need for struggling with the traditional understandings of God.
but this is just my opinion. I don’t mean to sound rude or like a jerk.
John,
I so appreciate you. Thank you for posting and responding to my letter. I thank you for the sensitivity you have shown in what you have published, you have proven that it was safe for me to share my story with you. Most of the comments posted have been very helpful, thought provoking and healing. I needed to hear/read everything constructive people have shared. My beliefs, or my understanding of spiritual things is now more nuanced than I thought they could be.
Thank you,
Courtney
“I so tire of people insisting that clear, simple, rationally defensible answers can’t be good answers; that in response to a real question demanding real answers it’s somehow more mature, or more intellectually honest and/or sophisticated, to essentially assert that it’s just all too complicated to comprehend. If you want to play the intellectual card, really play it. Don’t just link to a 90-minute lecture on free will. Offer a credible, logically sound argument for why exactly my answer to the theodicy is flawed, or untenable.” In response John I think its bloody hilarious I didnt realise I was trying to play an “intellectual card” and sorry that you feel that a 90 minute lecture discussing external influences on the human will isnt sufficient for his highness in offering a credible, logically sound argument regardless of the fact its not like you yourself are expressing anything original but rather Augustines ideas on freewill. Unfortunately like Jim, I do not find that your answer is “rationally defensible” and Im not interested in engaging in a theological argument I will leave the theological posturing/arguing to the “superior” intellectual men like yourself! I hope in your attempt to avoid putting God on trial by presenting an all loving, all good, all powerful God who puts “freewill” for the masses above the care and protection of an innocent young boy sits well with his mother! Freewill for the masses, rape and degradation for a nine year old boy, now thats what I call “rationale”. Up yours John Shore!
To outline quickly what I see as the differences between John’s view on free will and mine as I commented on yesterday:
As John so correctly observes, God will not stop your body from doing those things that your will directs. But as I see it your will is not in any way “free.” It is constantly bombarded by the influences of our consciences, PLUS the influences of ignorance, misconceptions, fear, religious upbringing (which includes all of those influences previously mentioned), etc., etc. Very simply, a will under INFLUENCE is not FREE.
The closest thing we have to “free will” among humans today is the sociopath or psychopath, who is “free” to either do harm or good — He feels no difference in either case. Those of us with so-called “normal” minds have the physical ability to rape children, for example, but our wills (under the overpowering influence of our consciences) would not allow us to do so. The psychopath has no such restriction. For those like the rapists mentioned in the story, their “sick” minds have overpowered the influences of guilt and remorse (which again don’t even exist in the psychopathic mind), allowing them to do what the rest of us see as horrific.
John, I have enjoyed all your articles and see much truth in them. However, concerning your views on “free will,” I must completely disagree. To begin with, if we are in BONDAGE to sin we most certainly do NOT have FREE wills. If our wills (our decision makers) are SUBJECT to ignorance, deception, and multiple experiences both good and bad outside of our control, then they are again most certainly not FREE.
Was Osama bin Laden exercising his “free will” when he “choose” to be born into a system of religious extremism and be taught to support it with all the vigor that Christians claim to support their system with? And how many thousands lost any faith in God after praying unsuccessfully for Him to save their parents in the World Trade Center? If we have “free” will as you claim, then when did it start? Before birth – in choosing your own sex, personality, physical and mental capabilities, and the country and family in which you would be born? Or after, when you “chose” to be stronger than those “weak” others who succumbed to the atrocities in their lives and lost faith?
The notion of “free will” is a delusion of mankind – developed by the religious in order to avoid blaming God for anything bad that happens. It is then used to put responsibility on man and deny the sovereignty of God.
If God is truly sovereign then He must be ultimately responsible. No, He did not reach down and force those sick people to rape that woman’s son, but as the creator of all of us the “potter” alone is responsible for every “clay vessel” that He makes. And that means that He alone is responsible for healing and restoring not only the woman and her son, but those who so brutally harmed him. Otherwise the assumption is that we must heal ourselves (both victim and attacker) or God will have no choice but to throw us away, which has led to the equally ridiculous notion of an eternal hell for unbelievers.
If God is obligated by His “love for all people” to allow free will to have its way, He is then essentially forced to allow the “bad luck” of being born into a non-Christian family, or the “bad luck” of being raped, to prevent us or drive us away from believing in Christ.
If you really meant what you said – “I’d be the last person in the world to blame you for rejecting God,” then are you also willing to admit that the experiences that drove her to reject God will result in her, and her son’s, eternal damnation because of that unbelief? I highly doubt it, but what are you then proposing as the consequences for that same unbelief? Will you tell that mother that she needs to “just be stronger” and somehow “find” the faith that this horrible experience has ripped from her?
Yes, the world is broken. And broken people do bad things to other broken people. But who is ultimately responsible for it being broken, and for every man, woman, and child being subjected to corruption and futility?
And Who alone is able to save it?
Is God going to save (restore) ALL people, or only those strong enough to save themselves, or lucky enough to be born into prosperous Christian families?
“If you really meant what you said – ‘I’d be the last person in the world to blame you for rejecting God,’ then are you also willing to admit that the experiences that drove her to reject God will result in her, and her son’s, eternal damnation because of that unbelief? I highly doubt it, but what are you then proposing as the consequences for that same unbelief?”
Speaking strictly for myself (as John is more than capable of speaking for himself):
1) I don’t believe that this woman (Courtney) and her son are eternally damned–because of unbelief or anything else. Ultimately, I believe that all people are saved–some more slowly than others, but all are saved. Also, anybody can claim to believe or disbelieve anything, but what God looks at is the heart–and God being merciful understands exactly why Courtney does not believe anymore and loves her anyway.
2) As for consequences for unbelief–this implies that unbelief is a misdeed for which people deserve some kind of punishment. I don’t believe that either. Again, I believe that God looks at the heart, knows the complete truth of what we think, feel, and believe and ultimately leads us to him anyway–sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, but ultimately in the words of the hymn “all safe and blessed, we shall meet at last.”
Anyway, my two cents. I could be wrong, but this is what I believe.
“God looks at the heart, knows the complete truth of what we think, feel, and believe and ultimately leads us to him anyway–sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, but ultimately in the words of the hymn “all safe and blessed, we shall meet at last.””
I completely agree with you. And I would also add that in God looking at our hearts He is not judging us, for being the potter He is responsible for the hearts of his vessels, and will therefore heal whatever misconceptions and ignorance lie within our hearts, and in so doing mend them.
“God gave us free will. And he will not take it from us. And we do not want him to take it from us. Free will is what defines us. It’s our most precious attribute. Without free will we are at best animals, and at worst mindless automatons.”
This is probably my least favorite argument for all of this. It used to 100% make sense to me and then I grew up and started actually evaluating things ad I realize now how ridiculous it is.
If God walked up to me tomorrow and said “Hey, a kid is about to get raped and I can stop the people that are going to rape him but I need to take away your free will to do it. Is that ok?” I would absolutely 100% give up my free will immediately forever. If me giving up my free will meant there were no more child rapists in the world I would do it in a second. I would give up my free will forever if it meant there would be one less child rapist in the world, and if you wouldn’t than you are not a Christian, because I would and I’m not so sure I believe in anything.
The thing is Im not interested in having a nine year old boys innocence sacrificed to protect my right to freewill. The concept of freewill was introduced by Augustine, and I think as christians we like to give simplistic answers to explain evil to !) relieve the suffering of those who have been subjected to evil behaviour and 2) to find some answer that gets God off the hook. The problem is when the church teaches concepts of a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God people will naturally wonder where was God when this evil act happened and why did He not prevent it from happening especially when in this ladies case she had regularly prayed for her sons protection of course in some way she is going to hold God accountable as well as the perpretrators. I think the church needs to rethink some of these concepts from freewill, to eternal conscious torment, to penal substitutionary atonement etc. My question is why as christians do we accept these concepts which were introduced by men how long ago? For goodness sake its 2012. There have been advances in the scientific understanding of the human mind which shape our conception of freewill. Are the cognitive sciences revealing that freewill does not exist, or are they merely shedding light on the inner workings of agency? And do the answers to these questions have implications for moral responsibility. I think we need to stop giving clear cut simplistic answers to one explain God and two explain human behaviour http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yp3Wr2yKrY&feature=fvst
Yes, you’re right: before Augustine no one had free will.
sigh
I so tire of people insisting that clear, simple, rationally defensible answers can’t be good answers; that in response to a real question demanding real answers it’s somehow more mature, or more intellectually honest and/or sophisticated, to essentially assert that it’s just all too complicated to comprehend. If you want to play the intellectual card, really play it. Don’t just link to a 90-minute lecture on free will. Offer a credible, logically sound argument for why exactly my answer to the theodicy is flawed, or untenable.
John, that was priceless..lol
I thought I had free will once. But mom said no.
I thought I had free will when I grew up. But my wife says no.
John, you make an excellent point. Unfortunately I do not find that your answer is “rationally defensible,” and so I have chosen to respond in length. Please see my response and know that I do not intend it to insult you, but to point out where I see your logic as flawed.
Jim, why in the world would you expect something rooted in *faith* to be logically defensible?
I understand your point concerning those things which we take on “faith” and cannot prove empirically. I was commenting on John’s view of “free will,” one that he tried to demonstrate as “rationally defensible.” Please see my responses to his article above. While I certainly do not view John as “irrational” – in that he is making what can be taken as valid points – but I think he overlooks all the factors which point to my conclusion that our wills are not in any way “free.”
Whether or not God exists, which I think is a big part of the point you are bringing into question, I do believe that science (psychology/neurosciences) has demonstrated that the “free will” that theologians claim exists, in fact does not.
Hey John,
I hope you’ll forgive my inserting my sometimes somewhat blunt two cents in this regard.
As Holly Tieken’s quote from Martin Luther points out, we cannot milk houses but build cows. Yet there are many ways in which God—for our benefit, many believe—violates our free will: No matter how hard you jump, you’ll always fall back down to the earth, every time. God isn’t about to let you just float off into space, whether accidentally or even if you wanted to: Sorry, you need a spaceship for that. And even then, there’s no way you’re getting too close to the sun: off limits, out of bounds. It’s seems clear to me that free will is not paramount in our world, even as regards how we feel: maybe someone’s bad mood reflects an inherent imbalance of their brain chemistry; or what we think: maybe someone has a bad dream because they happen to eat a burrito that for whatever reason didn’t agree with them.
To whatever extent God allows such a possibility as one person’s violation of another’s free will, He is not really holding free will first and foremost after all. What kind of just and benevolent God makes it so as—out of some strange respect for free will—an hour-long exercise of one’s free will may rob the free will of others for—in some cases—a lifetime? Or would you suggest that victims do have their full free will restored the moment their victimizer finishes exercising his—that, for instance, Ms. Courtney’s son could really just snap out of it any time if he really wanted to?
And why—oh why—are certain people granted the physical strength to do so, and others, not necessarily of their own free will, are not given sufficient strength to resist?
Now, this also appears at odds with what seems to me the predominant lay theology of our day and age, upon which are hinged the hopes of many: Many cling to a belief that everything happens for a reason. While I am quick to note that we can never know what that reason might be, it must also be acknowledged that we cannot know that that isn’t the case.
Further, I do not allow that, as God’s paramount respect of free will and the personal liberty intrinsic thereto seems ultimately, invariably to be taken to imply, we should respect as God-given some strange right of man to be wrong, to act wrongly, including by the saying of ultimately wrong and/or hurtful things (which is *not* to say that I disagree with the *civil* right to freedom of speech).
When you say, “you wish for God to look down, see that I am about to strike my wife, and somehow arrest that action: freeze me in mid-motion, paralyze my arm, instantly replace my crazed fury with peaceful thoughts and feelings,” must we really go looking for moments in history where God would seem has done just that, or the equivalent?
Now, you interfere with free will in deciding that someone can or can’t post comments on this blog. You have to—someone has to: You are obliged to protect the environment of the blog and the safety and freedom it enables others to enjoy. What your theology seems to be saying is that, rather than God do such things, you’d rather have men, if only the best of men, such as yourself, deciding who has the enactment of their will interfered with, instead of God’s sending natural powers to intervene (as He surely always could, and so not violate freedom of thought in any case; unless one takes it to include the way that that would surely mess with your head—that every time you’re about to do something wrong, something stops you. But this is really only how it seems to us from such a perspective where we cannot imagine *not* having this freedom; it really only messes with your head the same way that God’s application of a law of gravitation results in your brain’s immediate rejection in general of such thoughts as to exit a tall building by leaping from the window). Yet even with such excellent men as you on the job, could not God do it better handling it Himself? It does not seem to follow from God’s intervention in cases of, for instance, murders or mean-spirited blog comments, his interference in your own life personally, or more than one might hope for in mine. Couldn’t he practice the same limited interference in the world at large as you do in the world around yourself, and others do unto you every day, without its being necessarily anything you truly don’t want?
What of Steffany’s, and perhaps many really would rather do the same, volunteering to give up free will that such a thing not occur? Or does she not really know what she’s asking for in saying so, effectively limiting her capacity for free will in the matter?
Or what exactly is free will to you, John? Until we understand that, this stance seems to me to be nothing rationally defensible at all.
It is hard to believe with over 400 responses already and several days having passed, that the woman who wrote this would still be listening. But then many things are hard to believe and that does not make them impossible. If you are still reading, writer, please contact me. I have had some of your same experiences. I have a daughter who was violated and abused by someone even more trusted than a neighbor kid and his parents. I have a previous marriage that was very damaging. I have a string of “helpful” christian commentators who couldn’t wait to advise me on a situation they couldn’t hope to understand. Who can understand these things? But I also have some perspective that you haven’t had time yet to gain, you are in the middle of the aftermath of the pain that was inflicted upon you and yours by people, flawed, free, beloved people. I’m not going to lecture you on how its all gonna get better. I’m also not feeling I can push you back to God. But I hope if you contact me my experience will be a light for your way in the coming years. My daughter is now married, and just had my first grandchild. She is a beautiful, whole, healthy woman who forgives the one that damaged her and who has gone a long way to full healing from the experience. The day I saw her hand her precious baby daughter to that person was the day I realized the miracle that God is. He walked with her to a place where she can forgive to that level. She can believe that she is safe and her daughter is safe even when the past looks completely different. Who am I to not also forgive? Somehow in the past ten years since I was told of this travesty, God has worked a miracle and I also have forgiven. I have learned that although I never did those horrible things to anyone, I am also dangerous. I am also destructive, if in less humanly unforgivable ways, then in other, more subtle and therefore more deadly ways. God loves me. God protects me. I know how ridiculous that sounds in the face of just a little bit of the history I’ve given (and there is more, trust me!) but it is True nonetheless. That is something that only God could transact. There are people who do not know my daughter or I well who say we are victims. We are stupid. We should shut out the one that did this to her. But I can tell you there is no greater joy in my life than the day I realized I fully forgive and love that person, although they are not a daily part of my life. I cannot understand what it is like from their perspective. How do you ever forgive yourself for that? But I know the miracle God has worked in our lives, and I am sure he can fix that too. More importantly, I don’t care. I only know that my hatred of that person was seperating me; from God, from life, from my daughter even, and from trusting others. I have my love back, my confidant God back and as John Shore pointed out, we are both stronger for the experience.
But enough of that, if you reach out to me, I’m not going to preach at you anymore than that. I just want you to know that here on earth you have a person who partially understands and who loves you and who believes that you and your son can come through this. Don’t let that family that hurt him win. Cast aside the damage they did and don’t give them an even greater victory of destroying more of your son’s life and yours. Believe for him that he can heal and move past this, until he can believe it for himself. Show him the way to moving past this. You have been there for him all along, show him the way out of this. Forgive for your own sakes. For your life.
My heart sank when I read this story of pain. It hurt to know that a young boy endured such treatment. I have never known such a horrific act. But I have struggled my whole life with hurts that I blame against others. I want to be free. I would want to find my way to that place of freedom. My soul welcomes your voice of love Minda.
Minda: Thank you for this. You have said what I don’t think anyone else has been able to say. I have some of my own version of this and have walked with others in the same way. The simple answers are satisfying intellectually, but not helpful to the one who has suffered so deeply. In the end, the walk through suffering towards forgiveness and transcendence and understanding the truth about forgiveness and the deepening relationship with the “other” that we call God is such an amazing experience, that myself and others I know actually come to a place that says…”I wouldn’t change what happened to me, because it got me here.” That sounds absolutely insane from the beginning of the journey and for those who have not experienced it, but it is the reality for many people who have walked the road of healing. For many agnostics that I talk to, when I ask them what “God” they don’t believe in, they describe a God that I do not believe in as well. A God of an early faith development stage who is an old man who intervenes like a human would, punishing, conditional and …human for all purposes…except omniscient and omnipotent. To walk a journey through the dark night of the soul is to discover what has been called the “Cloud of Unknowing”. You enter into a relationship with no easy or simple tidy answers. Free will is not even in the equation. It becomes all about relationship and connectedness with that Divine Mystery and knowing we are all connnected, all loved, all “the Beloved”, and all have been conditioned and brainwashed in this world to think we are our egos. And so we live not as child of God or ego, but in a “both and” both a Beloved child of God and as a human with an ego. Once we can accept this and see that we are all indeed dangerous when we come from the wounded ego and we work to forgive and accept ourselves, then we can do that for our neighbor…yes, even when they have committed horrible acts. I know I’m not saying this very well. Richard Rohr, Thomas Keating, Teresa of Avilla, John of the Cross…Julian of Norwich, all have said it much better. But minda, you get it…you have walked through the dark night of the soul and hence you see with different eyes than we do…the eye of the soul. And that makes all the difference. Thank you.
I think there’s more to it than simple Free Will. Everything – every *thing* (person, planet, star, starfish, amoeba, lightwave, LOLcat, sulfur dioxide molecules, and rainbows) – is interdependent. We exist, we are self-aware, we have free will, we are able to act upon ourselves and others because we are the culmination of a gathering of universal laws – biology, chemistry, and physics – that defines God’s creation. We cannot be other than what we are without violating those universal laws.
That being said, I do believe there is an end to evil. It is in Jesus’ teachings. When we love one another as we love ourselves, when we love God with all our hearts, all our minds, and all our souls, our priorities change. It’s no longer “how can I afford a new X-Box” or “when can I have sex again”, it becomes “how do I help this woman and her child who have suffered so much?” as well as “how do I prevent the damaged and ill people who hurt them from hurting others.” We gnash our teeth and wail and rend our clothes over the evil that exists in this world, and we forget: we possess everything we need to end evil. God gave it to us when He created us.
Look at what we’re capable of: we wiped out smallpox. It used to kill millions of people a year, and now it’s extinct; we’ve cut the rate of childhood leukemia deaths in the US by better than 90%; we’ve sent our brothers to the Moon, and we’ve sent our own creations to Mars and beyond the Solar system; we rescue abandoned animals; we respond with compassion and charity to those who have lost everything in a natural disaster.
It’s all there. Jesus spoke and told us what we needed to do. We should be doing everything in our power to comfort this woman. We should be funding research and treatment for victims of sex crimes. We should be working to bring those who hurt her child to justice – real justice, not some cathartic mob-style retribution. We should be doing what we can to ensure that such crimes never happen again.
We have everything we need within us and among us to create God’s heaven on Earth. We just have to decide that it’s important enough to put the other stuff aside.
Wonderful. From the heart. The promise from God (outside of Old Testament understanding) cannot be that each person is protected from suffering or that some are and some are not. We are all interconnected and the specific “protection” I might want from God may go against what someone else or many others need. In that way of thinking, God is deciding who’s needs get met… then you end up with a theology that says God is negotiating between.the person who wants the nice day outside for their dying son’s birthday party or the farmer who needs the rain. The universe as it is set up just cannot work that way.
It calls for a completely different way of seeing the world where it isn’t about not suffering, but about loving. If we understand that we are LOVED no matter what and that we must LOVE no matter what and reach out to one another as you say under the guidance of the “Greatest Commandment(s)” of love, then ultimately, the system of love wins out and as Julian of Norwich says…”all shall be well, all shall be well and every manner of thing shall be well.” She wasn’t pollyanish, she was living during the black plague. But she saw differently. Sometimes in this lifetime we get to see the Good Fridays transformed to Easters, but we have to assume, that if not here, then it does happen later…some how. I’ve seen enough crazy situations like minda’s where evil is transformed…transcended to glimpse that the answer to “why is there suffering?” is that “the question is the problem”. How we see the problem IS the problem. I think the free will answer is a good one along the journey, but eventually for those who have been able to walk further down that path, even that answer fades away as they learn to see differently. We are coaxed by those who have made it to learn to accept where we are along the journey. But our conditioning in this world to be fearful of rejection and feel separate from God and one another and to be so filled with shame, makes the concept of true self acceptance and unconditional love and then love of neighbor excruciatingly difficult and most of us frankly continue to struggle. I personally trip and struggle at every step. So at least we must follow the law of Love as best we can. And as you say, continue to do real work to build “the kingdom” of peace and justice with persistence and know that it is Grace that is in charge.
only made it through less than one page of comments, so far, but i’m still not buying it.
am i the only one that *would* perfectly well want to be made into God’s “mindless, will-free puppet” if it meant never hurting anybody ever again?!
In human freedom in the philosophical sense I am definitely a disbeliever. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity. ~ Albert Einstein
Mankind has a free will; but it is free to milk cows and to build houses, nothing more. – by Luther, Martin.
“If God is so good, where is there evil in the world?” I like to respond to this statement by saying, “If good were not so good, why would He send His Son?”
Personally I think there are limitations to freewill and in reality we ARE NOT FREE because we are all interconnected, we only find our true humanity and freedom in loving one another, in loving our neighbour and love does not seek its own way, love places constraints on oneself, love protects, love exercises self control. In reality we are not free to do what ever we like because the consequence is destroying ourselves, destroying others and the world and I do not believe to learn love there has to be the existence of evil or suffering there are plenty of people who are loving individuals who have learnt to be so in the context of a loving family.
Thank you for that message, John. After an almost 20 year marriage to the daughter of a Presbyterian minister, that’s the most realistic explanation of God allowing evil to happen that I’ve ever heard or read. My heart goes out to the lady that wrote you, and like you said, it wasn’t God telling her to suck it up and go on, it was people. I’m at a point in my life, where I haven’t rejected God, I’ve just rejected religion. Thanks again for what you said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDgXF1MbD2A
Also, I find it strange that people feel they have to separate god/religion and science. The kind of god that can create a universe could surely weave the thread of evolution into the fabric, no? The only way I can think of god as real would pretty much be to think of him as The Scientist. And all of this is just an experiment. Because if he can see everything going on on this planet/petri dish, you would have to think any loving god would have pulled the plug a very long time ago. During the Inquisitions, perhaps? MY life happens to be pretty wonderful, but that doesn’t stop me from seeing how very terrible many people in the world have had it. So if he’s “up there”, he must just be taking notes, scratching his chin, saying, “hmmm, very interesting” [and, I would like to think, every now and then, when something happens like what happened to this woman's son, even saying WTF?!] And I feel for ALL of them. The victim and his family, of course. But even the predator parents were obviously truly messed up in the head, and they probably got that way from some totally f’ed up thing that happened to them when they were younger. The kid wasn’t “responsible” (if, he must have been around the same age…?) and is obviously going to be truly messed up in the head too, and this ‘gift’ just keeps on ‘giving’. Can they even comprehend how broken they are? And how broken they have made this boy? He has to carry this with him his whole life. It’s not one night of crazy BS and then they think “Boy, that’s totally f’ed up, we should never do anything like that again” and everybody forgets about it and goes on to have a normal life. I think people like that HAVE to be SICK in the head somehow, it’s the only explanation. And it took 6 years for that boy to even tell anyone, who knows what has been going on since then. I hope they have been locked up…!!!
« 1 … 4 5 6