Re: [asa] Speaking of theodicy

The New American Standard translates many similar O.T. verses including the
Isaiah one below as "calamity" which agrees with what David said.

But this doesn't help us escape the notion of a (necessary & appropriate) double
standard on ethics. Calamity would presumably involve much death at times (not
to mention the flood) Any human engaging in genocide is regarded as
unequivocally evil. But "the Lord giveth & the Lord taketh away" says Job. We
are denied the right to take vengeance, but the Lord reserves that to himself.
I don't see this so much as a double standard as a consistent application of
some higher law. I.e. I can drive our car, but my 13 year old son is not
allowed -- a double standard on the surface. Until one factors in that whomever
is old enough and merits a driver's license is allowed to drive (so it's not a
double standard after all.) God can take life and we can't -- double
standard. On the other hand if you create your own universe, set its rules and
populate it with sentient beings then you can govern it as you please and
rightfully exempt yourself from some of the things you require of them. (no
double standard after all -- we just don't quite qualify) We should probably be
grateful that God takes any interest at all in what we think.

--merv

Quoting David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>:

> The translation "create evil" here is incorrect. The word "ra" here has a
> range of meanings, including "calamity" or "trouble." The NIV translates
> "ra" here as "disaster" rather than evil. The context of chapter 45 is
> God's use of the Persian king Cyrus as a vehicle for judgment of Israel.
> The reference to creating "disaster" is a warning to Cyrus not to think of
> himself as the primary agent of judgment or authority over Israel and also
> as a warning to Israel. God is the true sovereign and ultimately it is
> through God that nations are blessed or judged. (See Moyter's commentary on
> Isaiah and also read the context of ch. 45 which makes this clear).
>
> On 11/17/06, Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of theodicy, and literal treatment of scripture and such, what
> > are the options in treating the little-heard passage, Is 45:7?
> > "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I
> > the LORD do all these things."
> > This would seem to suggest that the sustainer of Creation is also the
> > author (and sustainer then?) of evil.
> > JimA
> >
> > Robert Schneider wrote:
> >
> > > Was it the will of God that a child be crushed by that boulder? Does
> > > God will anything evil? There's a serious theodicy question here in
> > > the context of these reflections about natural/human caused events, as
> > > you imply.
> > >
> > > I answer no to both questions.
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
> > > To: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>; "Freeman, Louise
> > > Margaret" <lfreeman@mbc.edu>
> > > Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:38 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference
> > >
> > >
> > >> I think the important question to answer here is was it the Will of
> > >> God that the boulder rolled down the hill or not?
> > >>
> > >> If the parents of the child are believers, I am sure they are
> > >> comforting themselves with the claim that this was God's will, (or
> > >> perhaps they are angry with God).
> > >>
> > >> If it is just an unlikely event, made more likely by human choices
> > >> (not securing the boulder, the choice of where the house was built,
> > >> etc.), but something that otherwise happened for no apparent reason,
> > >> and was ultimately a result of natural causes, then where was God in
> > >> all of this?
> > >>
> > >> If God is in all things, then there really is no such thing as
> > >> random, and everything thing that happens, even seemingly random
> > >> things, is the Will of God.
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:22:22 -0500
> > >> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Louise, this is an easy one -- the law deals with cases like this
> > >>> all the
> > >>> time. The family will sue the mining company for negligence. Experts
> > >>> concerning mining procedures will testify about the standard of care
> > >>> for
> > >>> handling boulders resting near a grade, and the probability (usually
> > >>> expressed in general, not mathematical terms) of a boulder coming
> > >>> loose and
> > >>> rolling down the grade if the boulder is not properly secured or
> > >>> pulverized. A jury will examine the evidence concerning how the
> > mining
> > >>> company handled this particular boulder and compare it to the
> > >>> standard of
> > >>> care.
> > >>>
> > >>> If the mining company's work fell below the standard of care for
> > >>> securing or
> > >>> removing the boulder, the jury will assess causation. First, the
> > >>> jury will
> > >>> ask, but for the breach of the standard of care, would the boulder
> > >>> have come
> > >>> loose and struck the house? If the answer to that question is
> > >>> "no," the
> > >>> mining company will be legally at fault. If the answer to that
> > >>> question is
> > >>> "yes," the jury will then ask, even so, was the mining company's
> > >>> breach of
> > >>> the standard of care a "substantial factor" in the boulder coming
> > >>> loose and
> > >>> striking the house. If the answer to that question is "yes," the
> > >>> mining
> > >>> company will be liable. If the answer is "no," the injury will be
> > >>> deemed
> > >>> not to have been caused by the agency of the mining company (i.e.,
> > >>> it was a
> > >>> "natural" accident that would have happend without the mining
> > company's
> > >>> agency).
> > >>>
> > >>> Every day, in every critical area of society -- law, business,
> > >>> medicine,
> > >>> government, etc. -- human beings assess questions of agency and
> > >>> causation,
> > >>> using practical reason, without a requirement of absolute rigorous
> > >>> proof.
> > >>> If it were otherwise, society would grind to a halt.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 11/17/06, Freeman, Louise Margaret <lfreeman@mbc.edu> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So, don't make it a rock thrown out of a window. Make it a boulder,
> > >>>> loosened by strip
> > >>>> mining, rolling down a mountain and smashing through a house and
> > >>>> killing
> > >>>> a sleeping
> > >>>> child (this happened in Virginia last year:
> > >>>> http://www.ohvec.org/links/news/archive/2005/fair_use/01_06.html
> > >>>> Although in this case the boulder had some help from some careless
> > >>>> strip
> > >>>> miners,
> > >>>> boulders can and do roll down hills without intelligent intervention
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I can see two "extremes" of explanations:
> > >>>> "Pure" intelligent design, where a genius evil mastermind with
> > >>>> extensive
> > >>>> knowledge of the
> > >>>> terrain, the laws of physics and the layout of the unfortunate boy's
> > >>>> house intentionally sets
> > >>>> the boulder rolling with the express purpose of killing the child.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "Random and unguided" Boulder, loosened by natural and
> > >>>> non-human-related events
> > >>>> (soil erosion, etc) rolls down hill and kills child.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I don't see how Dembski's process is especially useful in
> > >>>> distinguishing
> > >>>> those two
> > >>>> explantions (which clearly are both incorrect) or in leading to
> > >>>> what is
> > >>>> considered the
> > >>>> correct explanation: intelligent human activity (strip mining)
> > >>>> increased
> > >>>> the liklihood a
> > >>>> boulder would roll down the mountain: once the boulder was moving,
> > the
> > >>>> child's death was
> > >>>> a random and unplanned consequence.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If you try to consider all the probabilities: from the mountain being
> > >>>> formed where it was,
> > >>>> that exact size and shape of boulder being deposited there, the
> > >>>> child's
> > >>>> parents meeting,
> > >>>> conceiving him, moving into the house and placing his bed on that
> > >>>> particular wall, this can
> > >>>> only be considered an extremely improbable event. In the grand
> > >>>> scheme of
> > >>>> things , the
> > >>>> actions of the strip miners in starting the boulder rolling probably
> > >>>> increases the probabilty
> > >>>> only very slightly. Yet they mining company is (rightly) blamed for
> > >>>> the
> > >>>> child's death.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So, was this child's death "designed" or "chance"?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> __
> > >>>> Louise M. Freeman, PhD
> > >>>> Psychology Dept
> > >>>> Mary Baldwin College
> > >>>> Staunton, VA 24401
> > >>>> 540-887-7326
> > >>>> FAX 540-887-7121
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> > >>>> To: "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>
> > >>>> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> > >>>> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:18:57 -0500
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference
> > >>>>
> > >>>> > Sure you would. Check its angle, velocity, etc. It
> > >>>> likely would be
> > >>>> > pretty
> > >>>> > clear that it was thrown out the window.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > >>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> David W. Opderbeck
> > >>> Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
> > >>> Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
> > >>> MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Web: http://www.davidopderbeck.com
> Blog: http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
> MySpace (Music): http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 17 17:23:01 2006