The root of all Evil

[Mrs. Maggott]

I'm not sure of your take on the Bible, M: do you take it as literal/divine word? I don't know how to react to your statements.Lotho

Yes, I believe that it is the inspired Word of God. However, Orthodox Christians do not translate Scripture literally - that is, that the "seven days" of creation are seven 24 hour days such as we experience here on earth. We believe that though there is much of Scripture that is in fact historically accurate (and that seems to be constantly reinforced by various archeological "digs" over the years), still much of it is in the form of parable such as Jesus Himself used when He taught. But whether Adam and Eve were actual human beings created to exist in a special relationship with God and then partook of the "forbidden fruit", thus marring (not ending) that relationship, is open to debate. However, the Church does understand that story to mean that at some time in our history as a species, we had the opportunity to have a special relationship with God and through disobedience, that relationship was, as I said, marred and broken if not ended. It did, however, require the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity - Jesus Christ - and His redemptive life, death and resurrection to re-establish that relationship and even then it was re-established within the context of a fallen world. Parenthetically, it appears that science has followed our human heritage back to ONE woman (see Time Magazine cover story several years ago) whom the researchers named (you guessed it!) Eve!

In any event, Orthodoxy does not believe in a literal word-for-word understanding of Scripture, especially given that in the West, the translations used were not the best, especially of the Old Testament. I hope this answers your question.

??? What do you think that the state of theology is these days? (And if it ain't right, what should it be?)Lotho

Come, my friend! When you have supposedly "Christian" churches who deny the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection and all the rest of the fundamental doctrines which actually mean "Christianity" and embrace abortion, euthanasia, sexual license and other "modernisms" - all of which were and are condemned by the Church - I think that the state of present day "theology" speaks for itself! Indeed, I have much more respect for neo-pagans who make no claim to speak for "the Church" than I have for those who wrap themselves in Her outer appearance (smells and bells) like wolves in sheep's clothing in order to deceive those who are looking for the Faith. At least New Age syncretists and neo-pagans are honest enough to present themselves for what they are: NOT the Church!

This sounds like a statement of churchly doctrine. What is your Church, and what are its main tenets, so that I may understand where you're coming from?Lotho

It is a statement of doctrine, but it would take too long to explain it all here. I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian (most people recognize the Church by its ethnic jurisdictional labels: Greek, Russian, Romanian, Albanian, American (yes, American) etc. But it is the early Church virtually unchanged since the first half of the first millenium. Doctrinally, the Orthodox Church stands with the Nicene Creed (4th Century) and has not changed Her doctrines since the Council of Nicea articulated our expression of faith. Of course, there have been other Councils (validated by the passage of time) and canons which have addressed various problems and situations which have arisen in the Church over the years (like the great iconoclast heresy), but that statement of faith remains unchanged. The Church makes nothing "doctrine" that is not in Scripture (hence it permits a belief in the assumption of the Virgin, but does not formalize the doctrine since it is not in Scripture). As I mentioned, we do not believe in the doctrine of "original sin", but rather in a "fallen nature" which gives mankind a predeliction towards evil.

Oh, and by the way, it is the Church which chose those books which are called "The Bible" today among many books which might have been incorporated. Those left out are called "Apocryphal" and often they are used in research, but The Bible as it appears in Christian churches today was "created" by The Church - and not vice versa. That is why Holy Tradition and the interpretation of Scripture by the Fathers of the Church carry the weight which they do in Orthodox doctrine, canons and liturgics.

Interestingly enough, when a group of very learned Protestants led by Peter Gilquist tried to determine if in fact the "early Christian Church" still existed, they engaged in several years of intense study including Church history, doctrine, liturgics and morals. After that time, they determined that the ONLY Church currently existing which continued in the ways of the early Church was in fact, the Orthodox Church - and they sought admission as a group to the Church. Metropolitan Philip of the Antiochean Orthodox Church in the United States welcomed them and presently they are under his jurisdiction with their numbers growing exponentially.

Now does this mean that the present day Orthodox Church in America or anywhere else is perfect? Hel.... er, heck no! In fact, Fr. Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory once lamented that the Orthodox Church was the right Church filled with the wrong people! A perfect example of this is the story told to me by an elderly Russian priest that the great C. S. Lewis in his journey to Christianity - after much study in the same way as Mr. Gilquist and company - wished to become Orthodox and approached an elderly Russian bishop in England to be received into the Church. The old bishop looked at him with wonder and said (imagine Russian accent here), "But my son, WHY do you want to be Orthodox? You are not Russian!" And so, Lewis became Anglican! But still, his works are used by the Orthodox Church to clarify and explain basic tenets of Christianity which still bind "Traditional" Churches whatever their so-called "denominations".

Unfortunately it hasn't been taken out of churchly tenets as consequence of the harm it has done through totally unnecessary creation of fear and guilt.Lotho

A hammer can drive a nail or split a skull; it is in the hands of the user as to what use it will be put. Church doctrine like anything else can be misused and HAS been over the centuries. As for "unnecessary fear and guilt", yes, that can happen (see Lewis' "A Pilgrim's Regress wherein he talks about an unhealthy and unproductive "fear" of God). However, in this day and age we are far more likely to see an absence of both fear and guilt. I happened on a "tribute" to Hugh Hefner the other night in which "recreational sex" was lauded to the skies! Frankly, there is no such thing! Sex is serious business and almost always has consequences whether emotional - depression, suicide, inability to form relationships - or physical - pregnancy or STDs including AIDS. Sometimes a little fear and guilt can be a whole lot less crippling than the consequences of their absence.

Do you accept this idea? Lotho

Yes. I find the concept of a "fallen nature" far more understandable and compassionate than simply stamping "sinner" on the head of every individual coming into the world. It explains why it is far easier to acquire and maintain BAD habits than good ones. It also permits an individual to accept blame for wrongdoing without crushing him (since no one is perfect) and also accept help in "getting back up and trying again" since every victory is a true victory and not just something we are "expected" to accomplish because we are born able to do it. It is rather like Christ's warning to the man that upon entering a feast he should take a lower seat at table rather than a higher one. It is infinitely more pleasant to be asked to move up than to be told we have to move down. If we see ourselves as sinners, then we can take heart knowing with every fall we can arise and that with every victory over our fallen nature - no matter how small - we progress daily towards God.

It is indeed interesting. I would conjecture that his experience on the battlefield brought him to reconsider what his religion was telling him at some level or other, even though he was a believing Catholic through and through. And I have seen that in many lives, death indeed comes as a gift and a welcome friend.Lotho

Yes. Of all Tolkien's mythology, his rather unique understanding of the mortality of man (and other beings) is virtually diametric to his faith. However, I seem to recall reading that it was a response to his making the Elves immortal and it came about during the writing of The Silmarillion (really, the FIRST book he compiled) which, as you know, is written from the point of view of the Valar and the Elves, not Men. He could hardly burden Men with death as punishment for that would have made Iluvatar and the Valar infinitely cruel since Men were virtually ignored while the Valar spent all their time on the Firstborn. So since death "had to be", Tolkien had to find some more acceptable explanation for its presence. The opportunity to leave the confines of the world (which would become infinitely wearying in time) and to have a place in the "Second Music" I guess filled the bill.

Don't push your luck!Lotho

Who knows? Without the films, there may be hope!

 

[Gimmi]

This brings up an old question: Is evil a part of God's grand design, or did something slip and get away from Him (assuming for the moment that God as humans imagine Him actually exists)? In which case, He would not be all-powerful. A perennial question: indeed, a can with an endless ever-flowing supply of worms.

God allowed the possibility of evil in his "grand design". Adam was created with free will. It is not logically possible to have free will with no moral evil. It is up to those whose will is free, not God, as to whether or not there is sin, resulting in suffering.

Think about it this way: Creatures who are free to love God must also be free to hate Him. Hatred (or sin) against God is evil and suffering will result. God is all-powerful and capable of destroying evil – but not without destroying free will.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

God allowed the possibility of evil in his "grand design". Adam was created with free will. It is not logically possible to have free will with no moral evil. It is up to those whose will is free, not God, as to whether or not there is sin, resulting in suffering.

Think about it this way: Creatures who are free to love God must also be free to hate Him. Hatred (or sin) against God is evil and suffering will result. God is all-powerful and capable of destroying evil – but not without destroying free will.

What you say is the elegantly logical statement of a believing Christian. However, there are many in the world (and I am one of them) who do not accept any religion as the presentation of divine truth, and who assert that the existence of God (as defined in the several holy books) is beyond the mind's ability to prove or disprove.

Lotho

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Yes, I believe that it is the inspired Word of God. ...
Orthodoxy does not believe in a literal word-for-word understanding of Scripture, especially given that in the West, the translations used were not the best, especially of the Old Testament. I hope this answers your question...

Yes, abundantly! You are a believing Christian with a specific point of view.

Come, my friend! When you have supposedly "Christian" churches who deny the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection and all the rest of the fundamental doctrines which actually mean "Christianity" and embrace abortion, euthanasia, sexual license and other "modernisms" - all of which were and are condemned by the Church - I think that the state of present day "theology" speaks for itself!...

Now I have a clearer idea of what you mean by the "fallen" state of theology. If you had it back the way you'd like, what would that look like? (Probably the opposite of what you decry.)

...I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian...it is the early Church virtually unchanged since the first half of the first millenium. Doctrinally, the Orthodox Church stands with the Nicene Creed (4th Century) and has not changed Her doctrines since the Council of Nicea articulated our expression of faith...

Wow — I haven't had contact with an Eastern Orthodox Christian since my first clarinet teacher at age 12! (Many years ago my father took gorgeous stereo slides of the interior of the then-just-opened St. Sophia Greek Orthodox Church in Los Angeles. Wish I knew where those slides were today! The stained glass windows were miracles in themselves.)

Oh, and by the way, it is the Church which chose those books which are called "The Bible" today among many books which might have been incorporated. Those left out are called "Apocryphal"...

So your holy book contains many more texts than the usual Western Christianity then.

...the great C. S. Lewis in his journey to Christianity - after much study in the same way as Mr. Gilquist and company - wished to become Orthodox and approached an elderly Russian bishop in England to be received into the Church. The old bishop looked at him with wonder and said (imagine Russian accent here), "But my son, WHY do you want to be Orthodox? You are not Russian!" And so, Lewis became Anglican! But still, his works are used by the Orthodox Church to clarify and explain basic tenets of Christianity which still bind "Traditional" Churches whatever their so-called "denominations".

I wonder how Tolkien reacted to that, in that Lewis hadn't become a Catholic.

A hammer can drive a nail or split a skull; it is in the hands of the user as to what use it will be put.

Ah, the NRA would love to hear you say that!

Church doctrine like anything else can be misused and HAS been over the centuries.

Whence comes the saying, "God protect us from the things man does in His name."

As for "unnecessary fear and guilt", yes, that can happen (see Lewis' "A Pilgrim's Regress wherein he talks about an unhealthy and unproductive "fear" of God).

This doesn't sound like anything that is spread far and wide in this country. Here, the whole country is feeling the effects of Christian extremism and neoconservatism...

...in this day and age we are far more likely to see an absence of both fear and guilt. I happened on a "tribute" to Hugh Hefner the other night in which "recreational sex" was lauded to the skies! Frankly, there is no such thing! Sex is serious business and almost always has consequences whether emotional - depression, suicide, inability to form relationships - or physical - pregnancy or STDs including AIDS. Sometimes a little fear and guilt can be a whole lot less crippling than the consequences of their absence.

Well, I would think it depends on who's having the sex, no? Attitude counts, after all. But you make an extremely important point about the absence of appropriate fear and appropriate guilt. We need to have more of those, indeed, more appropriate shame. It gets tricky, because the extreme religionists have always caused severe damage in those departments.

I find the concept of a "fallen nature" far more understandable and compassionate than simply stamping "sinner" on the head of every individual coming into the world. It explains why it is far easier to acquire and maintain BAD habits than good ones. It also permits an individual to accept blame for wrongdoing without crushing him (since no one is perfect) and also accept help in "getting back up and trying again" since every victory is a true victory and not just something we are "expected" to accomplish because we are born able to do it...If we see ourselves as sinners, then we can take heart knowing with every fall we can arise and that with every victory over our fallen nature - no matter how small - we progress daily towards God.

Well, I part company with you about that one. Too many times that gets far too destructive: original sin = damaged goods to begin with. Uh-uh! Children are damaged by their damaged parents, and that frequently involves teaching them they are inherent sinners. None of us are inherent sinners. By the way, what IS a "sin," anyway? We either do something to harm ourselves and others, or help ourselves and others. We can choose either to help or to harm. But to be BORN as inherently sinful? Little babies fry in hell unless they're baptized? No way, sez I.

Of all Tolkien's mythology, his rather unique understanding of the mortality of man (and other beings) is virtually diametric to his faith.

As I said, I believe the trenches of WW I taught him things that were just as important as anything he learned in church, and colored those learnings — I would go so far as to say, applied a corrective to certain churchly teachings about death and the afterlife. His version is much more loving.

...Without the films, there may be hope!

Thus spake Eru: "There will always be The Films!"

Lotho

 

[Walter]

I happened on a "tribute" to Hugh Hefner the other night in which "recreational sex" was lauded to the skies! Frankly, there is no such thing! Sex is serious business and almost always has consequences whether emotional - depression, suicide, inability to form relationships - or physical - pregnancy or STDs including AIDS.

Oh pulleeeesssssseeee....

Don't tell me, my wife and I were wrong enjoying it for the past 30 years....

Or is it no longer "recreational" when the participants are married (with each other)? But I agree it had consequences...

...the "consequence" started to attend university last summer...

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

God allowed the possibility of evil in his "grand design". Adam was created with free will. It is not logically possible to have free will with no moral evil. It is up to those whose will is free, not God, as to whether or not there is sin, resulting in suffering.

Think about it this way: Creatures who are free to love God must also be free to hate Him. Hatred (or sin) against God is evil and suffering will result. God is all-powerful and capable of destroying evil – but not without destroying free will.

God can, of course, do anything. However, Gentleman that He is, He chooses to play by the rules He Himself has set forth. As a result, once He created beings with free will, He does not (not "cannot") interfere with the actions of those beings even when it was to their detriment and eventual destruction. This is the age-old answer to the age-old question of how a benificent God can possibly allow terrible things to take place. For God to "step in" and "prevent" such things would "change the rules" of free will since most horrible acts committed by men were matters of free will at least on the part of those doing them.

Of course, if He simply walked away and left us to stew in our own juices, then He certainly would be accountable for many evil things. However, He created the Church (however much of a "hash" we humans have made of Her over the last 2000+ years), He sent His Son, the prophets, the saints and other attempts to guide mankind away from evil. To a large extent He has succeeded in that most human beings - fallible and fallen as we are - are not totally or even mostly wicked. Most of us are fairly ordinary "good" souls who, while we do make mistakes, are generally benevolent in our day to day actions. And when we do commit evil - accidentally or premeditatedly - we suffer the pangs of conscience that let us know that there in fact is a God who has set for us standards of acceptable moral behavior.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Oh pulleeeesssssseeee....

Don't tell me, my wife and I were wrong enjoying it for the past 30 years....

Or is it no longer "recreational" when the participants are married (with each other)? But I agree it had consequences...

...the "consequence" started to attend university last summer...

No, indeed! You and your wife are a perfect example of the joy and beauty of physical love which God intended! Thus do a man and wife become one flesh. Parenthetically, this understanding of the "oneness" of the marital couple is why under the law a wife or husband cannot be forced to testify against her/his spouse; it is a reiteration of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution which states that a person cannot be made to testify against himself.

The Orthodox Church - unlike the Irish heresy of Janism in the Catholic Church - finds absolutely nothing sinful in the pleasure of physical love when it is between husband and wife. There is no 'puritianism' in the Church - although you will find it in certain groups within the Church who have decided - like the Puritans - if you're having fun you must be doing something wrong! But again, like so many other groups and individuals over the centuries in the Church, you do have actual heresy presented as Church doctrine and this often results in egregious acts being committed in the name of Christ and His Church. But, again, one has to go back to the Gospels in which Christ tells such "religious" people - "I never knew you!" Not everything done in the Name of God is godly or even humane. St. John Chrysostom when speaking about the priests and hierarchs of the Church was heard to say that the "walls of hell are lined with priests and the bishops are the candlestands!" and that was from a great Patriarch of the Church! So simply being "important" in the Church doesn't protect one from error. Only prayer, faith and humility go a long way towards doing that.

"Recreational" sex is sex viewed in the same manner as swimming or tennis or any "recreational" activity which by its very nature is superficial. Sex is never "superficial"; it always carries with it physical, emotional and even psychological effects that can never be totally avoided. Eventually something comes home to roost and since the advent of AIDS, that "something" can in fact be a death sentence. It might be possible for some people to equate 'sex' with 'recreation, but I would suggest that someone who does that might also consider Russian roulette "recreational".

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

God can, of course, do anything. However, Gentleman that He is, He chooses to play by the rules He Himself has set forth. As a result, once He created beings with free will, He does not (not "cannot") interfere with the actions of those beings even when it was to their detriment and eventual destruction.

In that case I ask these questions:

•How does a believer know God exists? What is offered as proof?

•Why would such a God have a need to set up a relationship with lesser beings replete with really tough rules? What's the point? It sounds like a game, and considering the consequences to men, one helluva game of hardball. If God is perfect, God would have no needs in the first place, let alone creating beings to love Him and then kicking the crap out of them if they don't. And all that regretting that God does in the Old Testament. Does that sound like a perfect God? I think not!

He gets angry and floods the earth! That from a perfect loving God? "I am a jealous God, and shall have no other Gods before me." Jealousy? From God the all-perfect? And then there's that cute little passage in the Book of Micah: "The day shall come when the earth shall burn as an oven..." We can do that ourselves the way we're going! And if we don't do it, there will indeed be a day, at the end of the sun's life, when it will expand and destroy the earth.

•Why would such a God need to set up a situation wherein beings He (or She? Why not She?) created can destroy themselves, incurring eternal suffering through breaking rules they had nothing to do with setting up? What's the point of that outside of divine schadenfreude?

...This is the age-old answer to the age-old question of how a benificent God can possibly allow terrible things to take place. For God to "step in" and "prevent" such things would "change the rules" of free will since most horrible acts committed by men were matters of free will at least on the part of those doing them...

That a totally beneficent God allows horrible things to happen is a total contradiction in terms. It makes absolutely no sense. What's the point?

There's another answer that fits the facts just as well: Whether God exists or not (I postulate that to prove God's existence/non-existence is simply beyond the power of the human mind — as the cat who is inherently incapable of reading the newspaper), that, like it or not, men are in charge of their own affairs, and their screwups are their own fault. And yet another: that, observing the nature of what has transpired over the course of human history, that God, if She does exist, is totally indifferent to the affairs of men.

There is a whole discussion lurking in the wings about how and why humans believe in God at all (a case of magical thinking contributing to physical survival, brain hardwiring, genetics, evolution, the very nature and structure of belief acquisition), but it would probably belong in a separate thread.

Lotho

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

The questions that you are asking require not only more space and time than are available here, but someone of considerably more knowledge and the ability to express it than I possess. Therefore, I recommend (highly) to you, C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity". The book contains a number of essays that were the foundation of a series of lectures Lewis gave on the BBC. He answers quite succinctly and convincingly many of the perfectly valid questions you raise.

Furthermore, Lewis was a confirmed atheist who researched the matter thoroughly because he was challenged to do so by a much valued friend. When he had finished the task, he found himself (to use his own words) "dragged kicking and screaming" into the Church, something he really did not want to do. Therefore, you may find that his explanations are more apt to appeal to someone who wants actual hard answers rather than just the recitation of doctrine.

If you decide to give the book a try, let me know what you think when you finish it.

God bless!

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

...I recommend (highly) to you, C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity". The book contains a number of essays that were the foundation of a series of lectures Lewis gave on the BBC. He answers quite succinctly and convincingly many of the perfectly valid questions you raise. ...Lewis was a confirmed atheist who researched the matter thoroughly because he was challenged to do so by a much valued friend. When he had finished the task, he found himself (to use his own words) "dragged kicking and screaming" into the Church, something he really did not want to do. ...If you decide to give the book a try, let me know what you think when you finish it....

First I must finish my struggles absorbing three book's worth of the writings of Michael Schermer (which, once absorbed, will no doubt allow me to appreciate even more what Lewis had to say). I will keep the Lewis book on my list for future reading!

What would interest me even more than Lewis' BBC essays (the results of his becoming a churchman) are the reasons he allowed himself to be dragged kicking and screaming (I love that phrase, use it every chance I get) into religion if he really didn't want to.

May the Farce be with you!

Lotho

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

What would interest me even more than Lewis' BBC essays (the results of his becoming a churchman) are the reasons he allowed himself to be dragged kicking and screaming (I love that phrase, use it every chance I get) into religion if he really didn't want to.
Lotho

To begin with, Lewis wasn't "dragged kicking and screaming" into religion but Christianity, something serious Christians consider a way of life rather than simply a "religion". Unfortunately, many Christians today no longer understand the faith in those terms but rather they look upon it as merely one other aspect of their lives, something they can do or not do depending upon a variety of circumstances, most of which have nothing whatsoever to do with God. Indeed, this is one of the reasons that many Christian "denominations" are losing members - because they have become just another obligation in the lives of their adherents rather than the meaning of life itself.

As for the "why" of Lewis' behavior, I will say simply this: after he had expended a great deal of time and energy in thoroughly researching the matter, he came to the unhappy but unalterable conclusion that Christianity was correct. Once he had done that, he could no more turn his back on what he had learned than fly (without a plane, that is). He believed (rightly) that ignoring what he had learned simply because he didn't care for the conclusion he had reached would constitute intellectual dishonesty - not to mention a chance of eternal damnation. And so, albeit not all that gleefully, he became a believing Christian.

Tolkien was happy his friend had become a Christian, but he was sorry that Lewis' conversion had not led him to Rome - which, of course, Tolkien believed to be the ultimate destination of those wishing to be truly Christian. However, Lewis' background (Protestant Irish) mitigated against his becoming Catholic although - as I did mention - he had made a vain attempt at becoming Orthodox.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

To begin with, Lewis wasn't "dragged kicking and screaming" into religion but Christianity, something serious Christians consider a way of life rather than simply a "religion".

An excellent point. Indeed any sincere practitioner of any religion considers it a way of life rather than a set of weekly rituals to be grudgingly indulged.

...As for the "why" of Lewis' behavior, I will say simply this: after he had expended a great deal of time and energy in thoroughly researching the matter, he came to the unhappy but unalterable conclusion that Christianity was correct. Once he had done that, he could no more turn his back on what he had learned than fly (without a plane, that is)....

Now that intrigues me very much. He evidently saw no way out of the logic of what was presented to him, and accepted its premises as truth, which left him no other choice than but to become a Christian. I daresay someone else would not have given in quite as readily, or even have been convinced at all. Your book "Mere Christianity" sounds even more tempting. But alas, I have much reading to do before I get to it!

Tolkien was happy his friend had become a Christian, but he was sorry that Lewis' conversion had not led him to Rome - which, of course, Tolkien believed to be the ultimate destination of those wishing to be truly Christian.

Of course! How could it be otherwise?

***

And I have noticed that in the movies at least, it seems always to be the Catholics who are particularly beset by problems with demons, vampires, exorcisms etc. The latest case is the movie "Van Helsing," and I will not discuss any of the plot in case any readers plan to see it. Suffice it to say, it's a ripper! Super special effects, fabulously entertaining! All your gothic horror favorite characters are in it: Mr. Hyde (voiced by Robbie Coltrane); Dracula and his three wives; werewolves; Igor (Dr. Frankenstein's assistant); and Frankenstein's monster, who takes a crucial part in the story.

And I was happily surprised to find David Wenham (late of Faramir fame) taking a fine supporting comic role as a monk supremely gifted in the making of 19th-century James Bond-like superweapons, but otherwise clueless when venturing out of the church doors. Very funny part, and he certainly looked nothing like Faramir: a monk with the de rigeur Friar Tuck bowl haircut, red hair and stuck-out ears!

Barley

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Well, of course, there are serious Christians today who have become so "sensitized" to the ongoing criticism of the Faith by many in the establishment (indeed, by the establishment itself in many cases) that they go "hard over" where they needn't. For instance, many believe that the Harry Potter books exalt the occult and witchcraft which anyone who has read the books can testify is not the case. The Potter books like the old Oz books, attempt to teach children the virtues within the context of the story. The "wizard stuff" is merely a plot ploy to engage interest. Rowling herself has stated to children who ask her that she doesn't believe in "magic" except the wonderful magic of the human mind. But still, many very devout Christians are absolutely sure that the books are an attempt to lead children into the occult. And this is very sad because the Potter books are excellent insofar as their moral content. Friendship, selflessness, service to others, kindness and courage are presented as being far superior to selfishness, cruelty, venality and the desire for power. There is also a very strong element of redemption in the books; that is, those who were once on the wrong path may stop, turn around and regain the true way. These are all very "Christian" messages, but because they involve a magical (fictional) world of witches, wizards, ogres, vampires, werewolves and other fantastical creatures, many good Christians rail against them.

The Lewis book is very short (a small paperback) and it is divided into essays rather than a book one must read all at once if you require something to take to the doctor's office or read on the train. Also, other books of his that give great insight into many of the problems you mention are his original "journey" to Christianity called "A Pilgrim's Regress" which really is a sort of "fictionalized" allegorical recounting of his labors. Also, "The Great Divorce" touches on many of the misconceptions Christians have regarding the afterlife (heaven and hell). Then there are the famous "Screwtape Letters" - a wonderfully demonic little work involving letters from a major demon to a young temptor just going "on line", so to speak. And, of course, there is Lewis' "science fiction" trilogy, "Out of the Silent Planet", "Perelandra" and "That Hideous Strength" as well as his very famous "Chronicles of Narnia". He also wrote "Surprised by Joy" regarding his wife and "The Problem with Pain" after her death. There are other books, but these give wonderful insights and explanations of Christianity (not just doctrine) and would help with many of your obviously valid questions.

God bless.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

I am not avoiding your thoughtful post when I say that suddenly I'm not ready to get into a discussion about Lewis' "adventures in Christianity." It's just that I have suddenly fallen into one of those places in life (which happen more and more rarely at age 67) where I have come across concepts that are absolutely new to me, something on the order of (after many years of thinking that I had finally settled age-old cosmic matters) coming across a new color or flavor! I am referring to the writings of Michael Schermer — Why People Believe Weird Things; How We Believe; The Science of Good and Evil — this trilogy is the size of LOTR (www.skeptic.com) — and I can feel my whole belief structure getting whipped around — it's like the foundation of my spiritual/cosmic viewpoint is being taken apart and reassembled in a different configuration! It's wild fun but complex, and it will take quite a while for me to absorb all this new stuff into my psyche, to the point where I can apply it with comparative ease and effectiveness.

We can talk about lighter stuff if you wish — favorite recipes, etc. — but for now and for some way into the future, I see I do not have what it takes to discuss the more cosmic matters until I have added this new knowledge to my spiritual/intellectual armamentarium and thoroughly digested it (I think I may have mixed my metaphors there).

Barley

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

I fully understand that of which you speak (so to speak). Indeed, it was a revelation to me when several years ago, neurologists discovered that mankind is "hot-wired" to "believe"; that is, religion, faith, whatever else you care to call it is part of our fundamental human neurological/biological makeup and not merely an intellectual pursuit! No other creature has such neural paths in its brain however "intelligent" - except man!

My only advice on your new found reading material is this: yes, much of what we do is pre-ordained in our makeup. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is without meaning. Indeed, one wonders why a purely material evolutionary universe would produce such a situation. Surely, it is far more likely to have been the intentional act of a Being Who wished to have a relationship with us which included "worship" than something that just "happened" because the primeval ooze was hotter than normal on that day.

But, by all means, wait to read Lewis until you have digested your current feast. If there is one thing I have learned over my almost 63 years is that God allows things to happen in His own good time and for His own good reasons!

God bless and happy reading (only don't get a hernia picking up such big books!).

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

I fully understand that of which you speak (so to speak). Indeed, it was a revelation to me when several years ago, neurologists discovered that mankind is "hot-wired" to "believe"; that is, religion, faith, whatever else you care to call it is part of our fundamental human neurological/biological makeup and not merely an intellectual pursuit! No other creature has such neural paths in its brain however "intelligent" - except man!

That's part of what I'm reading about.

My only advice on your new found reading material is this: yes, much of what we do is pre-ordained in our makeup. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is without meaning. Indeed, one wonders why a purely material evolutionary universe would produce such a situation. Surely, it is far more likely to have been the intentional act of a Being Who wished to have a relationship with us which included "worship" than something that just "happened" because the primeval ooze was hotter than normal on that day.

For myself, I believe that how we are today has followed from the "prime directive" of physical survival. Then, Maslovianlike, everything else developed from getting survival problems resolved and filling in the resulting "down time" with higher pursuits over the millenia.

...don't get a hernia picking up such big books!).

These days, the most likely scenario of my getting a hernia comes through casting off from a banquet table with a generously (over)loaded tray...

Barley

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Ah... a true hobbit with his priorities in the right place!

 

[Gimmi]

•How does a believer know God exists? What is offered as proof?

No sense to you, but the proof is literally in everything I sense.

•Why would such a God have a need to set up a relationship with lesser beings replete with really tough rules? What's the point? It sounds like a game, and considering the consequences to men, one helluva game of hardball.

Analogy: Why do I have a need to set up a relationship with a dog (a lesser being) replete with really tough rules (e.g., she can’t pee in the house)? Simple, I love dogs for the joy they bring me when we play games such as one helluva game of fetch with a hardball! Now if the question is “Why does MM have a need to set up a relationship with a cat?...

If God is perfect, God would have no needs in the first place, let alone creating beings to love Him and then kicking the crap out of them if they don't. And all that regretting that God does in the Old Testament. Does that sound like a perfect God? I think not!

Looking at the bible systematically, there is a large love, sacrifice, and fellowship theme. Certainly, God has no needs, there is no lack in Him. The bible says that God is love. It says that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…" The nature of biblical love is to give. God, the son, said, "No greater love has anyone than that he lay his life down for a friend." The bible says we are called into fellowship with Christ.

It seems to me that God desired to create us in order that He might be able to simply love us and have fellowship with us. In fellowship, He is glorified. Like you implied, God didn't need to create us due to any lack in Him. But God's doing so and His desire to love us and fellowship is not a weakness in Him, rather I believe a manifestation of His character of love.

He gets angry and floods the earth! That from a perfect loving God? "I am a jealous God, and shall have no other Gods before me." Jealousy? From God the all-perfect?

Because of evil in the world. Was His anger wrong? Was His punishment wrong? Taken in context (please read the context) was His jealousy wrong? If the answer is no, then does that make God not “all-perfect”?

•Why would such a God need to set up a situation wherein beings He (or She? Why not She?) created can destroy themselves, incurring eternal suffering through breaking rules they had nothing to do with setting up? What's the point of that outside of divine schadenfreude?

The point is most definitely outside of divine schadenfreude. Some thoughts (except for number one, these are just arguments):
1. First and foremost, God has reasons for allowing evil to exist that we simply cannot understand. We have confidence in God knowing that His ways are above our ways and we live by faith. But I understand that this is an unfulfilling answer, so…
2. Free will means the possibility of evil or rebelling against God. Suffering, is an unfortunate product of evil, thus proof that anything contrary to God’s wishes is bad, harmful, painful, and leads to death.
3. God gave Adam authority. When Adam rebelled against God, he changed the very nature of man and creation. Creation was no longer a paradise, people became sinful. Death resulted. God does not leave us alone in “divine schadenfreude” in this fallen world. He continues to point us to Himself, to truth, to morality, to love. He used evil and sinners to sacrifice His Son that we might again have eternal life. He proves His sovereignty over evil, suffering, and rebellion, that He is worthy of honor and glory.
4. If God should end evil and suffering, when should He stop? If God stops only some of it, then we would still be asking the same question of why the rest exists. Therefore, for your argument to be effective, He must stop all of it. Murder and rape is wrong, hatred and bigotry in your heart is wrong. Both must be stopped which means freedom of thought and free will. God has chosen not to do this. Again, this points to God permitting evil and suffering because of Him allowing us free will.
5. God uses suffering to do good. In other words, He produces patience through tribulation, or saves someone through it. Look at Joseph who says, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good". And of course, Christ.
6. For a triumphant ending: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

No sense to you, but the proof is literally in everything I sense.
...

You are a true believer, and I have no quarrel with anything you say as long as you don't try to force me to believe it.

Barley

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

You are a true believer, and I have no quarrel with anything you say as long as you don't try to force me to believe it.

Lotho

Ah, but my dear Lotho! That's the whole point! True believers never try to force ANYONE to believe! Why did the early Church grow as it did - and continue to grow even when being a Christian was literally a death sentence? Because Christians lived their lives in such a way - showing love, compassion, mercy, charity and manifesting the miracles and wonders of a life in a relationship with God - that others simply wanted to be a part of it. One early pagan chronicler noted with wonder that these "Christians" could be seen wandering in his town's garbage dump early in the morning rescuing infants that had been left there to die! He just couldn't get over anyone caring about someone that wasn't "theirs" (in their family).

Indeed, we have grown up in a culture which has at least the foundations of Christian morals and so we cannot recognize the fact that in the non-Christian world, especially the ancient pagan world, nobody gave a fig for anyone that wasn't a direct family member. The old lady next door could starve to death and it wasn't any of your business so your weren't obligated to do anything about it. Christianity changed all that. There were no orphanages or hospitals before Christianity. Even the Jews who were constrained to certain standards of kindness by their religion were not obligated to care for those outside of their family and/or tribe and they certainly were not even involved with - much less caring about - Gentiles. The parable of the Good Samaritan which is so familiar to us was a revelation to the Jews of Jesus' time. Considering a Samaritan (who was worse than dirt) as a "neighbor" was revolutionary!

In the beginning Christianity was spread not by the sword (like Islam), but by the words and the deeds of Christians. No one was "forced" to do anything. Unfortunately, when the Faith became intwined with nations and their desire for empire building and conquest, it often became at least an excuse for those activities. Bringing God to the heathens was more likely an exercise in having one's "flag" fly over newly conquered territory. The fact that those actions could be disguised in the light of "spreading the Gospel" was merely a sop to many people's conscience. However, by its very nature, Christianity was to be preached and lived. No one can force anyone to believe. Under certain circumstances, one can be forced to exhibit outward signs of belief or unbelief (Christians under the Communist yoke), but that never constitutes belief which is something that the individual must consciously choose him or herself. An unwilling "believer" is no believer at all.

As for cats: I have a dog and love her, but cats!! When you have a relationship with a dog, it is master to underling; with a cat, it's equality at it's best! A dog has a master; a cat has staff!