a very long thread

[Oscar]

Tom-----

Though I haven't thrown all my Watchman Nee books away, I never read them any more. Several times I thought I had finally "seen the light" after reading Watchman Nee. One Book "The Normal Christian Life" influenced me greatly, but I began to feel more and more that I must not be "blessed" as others who really knew the "deeper life", because I just couldn't seem to "get it". I kept waiting for "experiences" to happen to me.

I would try to surrender my life in some "one time lay it all on the altar" manner, only to realize very shortly thereafter, that it didn't "take", so I'd wait until some emotional high hit before I'd give a try again. Needless to say, none of my "lay it all on the line" offerings ever "took" and I was more miserable than ever. So, I have never taken up Watchman Nee's books again. As for Witless Knee, I have never read any of his works.

--Joe

Joe,

Your experience is quite common.  The Great Spiritual Authority writes a book showing you the way.  You try to implement his method...but it doesn't seem to work.

That is because Christ is the savior, and being a GOOD shepherd, he hasn't kept the information we need to follow him as a special secret for special people.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Arthur]

A question that's been kinda nagging at me.  Why is it that the Good Shepherd, who has the power to do so, just wipe out all of the wolves in the world so that not a single sheep gets ravaged?  
For that matter, Jesus said that the Good Shepherd gives his life for the sheep.  Were the wolves more powerful than him?  Obviously not, so....?

[BenJapheth]

A question that's been kinda nagging at me.  Why is it that the Good Shepherd, who has the power to do so, just wipe out all of the wolves in the world so that not a single sheep gets ravaged?  
For that matter, Jesus said that the Good Shepherd gives his life for the sheep.  Were the wolves more powerful than him?  Obviously not, so....?

We can choose... All of us as sheep have gone astray.

[Oscar]

A question that's been kinda nagging at me.  Why is it that the Good Shepherd, who has the power to do so, just wipe out all of the wolves in the world so that not a single sheep gets ravaged?  
For that matter, Jesus said that the Good Shepherd gives his life for the sheep.  Were the wolves more powerful than him?  Obviously not, so....?

Arthur,

The question of "why would a good God allow evil?" is a whole area of theology, called Theodicy.

A part of the answer is virtue.  God desires virtuous sheep.  Unless non-virtuous behavior is possible...all the virtues are meaningless.

A good Systematic Theology book would have a discussion of this area.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[jesusfreak]

Arthur,

The question of "why would a good God allow evil?" is a whole area of theology, called Theodicy.

A part of the answer is virtue.  God desires virtuous sheep.  Unless non-virtuous behavior is possible...all the virtues are meaningless.

A good Systematic Theology book would have a discussion of this area.

How bout this - "evil is simply a lack of good".  Therefore, since a creation can never be equal to the creator, there must be less good and hense a lack (given that there is not as much good as can be obtained).   If there is the possibility to lack a little, there must also be the possibilty to lack everything and possess no good.

 

--
lucas

[Arthur]

A question that's been kinda nagging at me.  Why is it that the Good Shepherd, who has the power to do so, just wipe out all of the wolves in the world so that not a single sheep gets ravaged?  
For that matter, Jesus said that the Good Shepherd gives his life for the sheep.  Were the wolves more powerful than him?  Obviously not, so....?

We can choose... All of us as sheep have gone astray.

God has a choice too.  And not only does he have a choice but he can actually do something about it.  As a father, I would never want any bad thing to happen to my child.  I especially wouldn't want him to fall into the hands of someone like George G.  So what gives?  And, not everyone has a choice.  Did the kids in the assembly choose their parents?

Thomas I think I see what you're saying.  Without darkness, there is no contrast for light, to show how bright, pure and virtuous the light is.  There would be no shades, no degrees and no reference point.  If that's the case, then what will it be like when this old heaven and earth have passed away?  Will evil and darkness still be in existence so that we may have a point of reference by which we know how great God's light and love is?

But really this seems all so philosophical.  The average Joe who's been burned by evil men probably isn't interested in exploring the oddysey of theodicy.  Interesting that the common people heard Jesus glady.  If anything, I think it's the love and kindness of Jesus and the truth and clarity with which he spoke that won them over, even if they couldn't make sense of the purpose of the universe.

Speaking of Jesus, really I think it is the fact that not only would God allow evil to exist in the world, but that he would then come into it as a man and live among us and then die on the cross for our sins--that's the most mind-boggling things of them all.  Well, one thing I know is that I can't say he doesn't understand.  And I can't say that he's vindictive or cruel.  I guess all I can say is that I don't understand why he set the world up the way he does, but I know that he loves me.  And I guess that's all that really matters.  God demonstrated his love for us plain as day.

But I just wonder sometimes why evil people live and breath and prosper and do all sorts of cruel things to innocent people.  Lately a picture has been running in my head of little Kate climbing up into her father's lap and giving him a hug and a kiss, and I just feel very sad for her.  Why should any little girl ever have to have a father like that?  I remember that she was very stubborn, even for a two year-old, but in time Jeff's slaps on the face and other cruel punishments broke her and though she seemed sweet on the outside, it was like she wasn't really there.  <shakes head>  

I worked for the probation department and district attorney's office for a while and I've learned that there are some real sickos out there.  (Check out the TV series Law and Order: SVU).  What about all the little boys and girls out there that have sexual predators for fathers?  Think of it.  Where do they find the security that a little child needs?  Who is their example for decency and humanity?  Where do they find love and acceptance?  It's all been taken away from them.  It's not their choice.  Man I wish the people responsible for that would all be shot, it so angers me.  

Arthur

[M2]

I have commented about Sondra's spirituality before, but she has never reacted as violently as she has this time.  To be fair I did add a comment about her silent majority, which possibly contributed to her violent reaction.  She has quoted some posts of mine where I quoted from emails.  The difference is that most of my quotes are not from individuals who read/post on this BB.  They are from private communication between friends who do not want to invest the time on any forum.  They sometimes read the GA website when I direct them to particular articles posted there.  They are not my support structure that keeps me posting on this forum.

To answer Lucas' question,  I called her silent majority cowards because some of them have sent me and other friends rude and brash emails.  Also like Bob Smith, they have made bold accusations behind the cover of a pseudonym and are not willing to own their words.  This is all behind-the scene activity and therefore, cowardly.  My first non-annonymous post on this BB identified me as to who I was before, so I take responsiblity for everything I have said even while annonymous.  Annonymity may be necessary for some, but some are doing so because they are unstable and unwilling to face the truth of the matter, or they have a particular agenda.

Lord bless,
Marcia

[jesusfreak]

To answer Lucas' question,  I called her silent majority cowards because some of them have sent me and other friends rude and brash emails.  Also like Bob Smith, they have made bold accusations behind the cover of a pseudonym and are not willing to own their words.  This is all behind-the scene activity and therefore, cowardly.  My first non-annonymous post on this BB identified me as to who I was before, so I take responsiblity for everything I have said even while annonymous.  Annonymity may be necessary for some, but some are doing so because they are unstable and unwilling to face the truth of the matter, or they have a particular agenda.

Lord bless,
Marcia

The way you react to them, placing judgment upon their person's *BEFORE* knowing who they are, is not exactly conducive toward their decision of identity revelation.

In this same light, how can you possibly know their agenda's? You don’t know who they are or what they are about  

These are types of assumptions that hinder progress....IMO

--
lucas

Note - Marcia, I am truly not trying to badger *you* in this.  Simply, I am pointing out misconceptions that are routinely presented.  While opinions of Sondra and Matt may be well substantiated, be careful of how far you can fairly label these "unknown people".  

[Oscar]

My Dear Arthur:
You raise a powerful and relevant query my friend, and no disrespect to Tom or others who have responded but their rationale is in my view wholly unsatisfactory.
It is my carefully considered opinion, that there is simply no way to understand why God permits the course of evil in this world (yes even to the harm of those He loves, including His only begotten Son) unless you really come to grips with the Biblical teaching and doctrine regarding THE VESSEL OF WRATH.
It would also seem to me that Lucas' notion of evil  being the absence of good is a bit simplistic and begs the question, Plato notwithstanding.
There are malevolent spirits, personalities who have knowingly set themselves in opposition to God and His purposes. There are malevolent humans, who knowingly do the same. There are many who are puppets in the agendas of both above. Think of the assemblies. God alone makes the distinction. What kind of vessel am I??!!
Clearly since we are all by nature children of wrath, as Paul the apostle was, some of us have been refashioned throught his wondrous grace into vessels of mercy. Some have not.
Romans 9 clearly tells us why. It is indeed hard for us to kick against the goads...
Verne

Verne,

In my reply to Arthur, I only said that a part of the answer is virtue.

There is obviously more to the issue than that.  However, niether can all evil be ascribed to the wrath of God.

One example is natural evil.  People drowned by hurricanes, buildings fall on them in earthquakes and so on.  No guilt needed, and it happens to Christians as well as non-Christians.

Once I was listening to a missions chairwoman  report on how God had shown his displeasure by raining out some Buddhist parade in Taiwan.  It so happened that a few days earlier a twister had hit a Baptist church during the morning service and had killed many of them.

I refrained from asking her if that proved that God hates Baptists.
(But I thunk it)  

BTW, Lucas' comment about evil having no ontological existence but being simply the absence of good comes from Augustine of Hippo.

I don't know if he got it from Plato or not.

The problem of evil is a BIG issue, and it is best dealt with by dividing it up into its separate parts, such as moral evil, natural evil, generational evil. inadvertant evil, and bollweavel.

Christian theologians and  philosophers do not have a complete answer to the problem, but they have done much good work.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[jesusfreak]

BTW, Lucas' comment about evil having no ontological existence but being simply the absence of good comes from Augustine of Hippo.

I don't know if he got it from Plato or not.

I was quoting the idea expressed in Plato's Republic.  I find it quite the convienent basis to use in this consideration.

Basically, how do you prove to me something is evil?  Is it through contradiction with something that is "good"?

--
lucas

[Arthur]

I was quoting the idea expressed in Plato's Republic.  I find it quite the convienent basis to use in this consideration.

Plato also wrote The Phaedrus which discusses rhetoric and male lovers among other things.  Let's see, how was it "As wolves love lambs so lovers love their loves." Oops, that's the toned-down American version.  I believe the original states, "As wolves love lambs so lovers love their lads".
Would you say that's good, Lucas?

Basically, how do you prove to me something is evil?  Is it through contradiction with something that is "good"?

God, our creator and the great king over all the earth, states what is good and what is evil in his word.  Believe it or not.

Arthur

[jesusfreak]

I was quoting the idea expressed in Plato's Republic.  I find it quite the convienent basis to use in this consideration.

Plato also wrote The Phaedrus which discusses rhetoric and male lovers among other things.  Let's see, how was it "As wolves love lambs so lovers love their loves." Oops, that's the toned-down American version.  I believe the original states, "As wolves love lambs so lovers love their lads".
Would you say that's good, Lucas?

I would say, that's Plato for you.  I would also note that it was this specific idea of Plato's which I have quoted, and not Plato himself (ie, I did not quote him for any "authority" purposes, only for what I feel was a "good idea" of his).

Basically, how do you prove to me something is evil?  Is it through contradiction with something that is "good"?

God, our creator and the great king over all the earth, states what is good and what is evil in his word.  Believe it or not.

Arthur

Ahh yes, so God knows.  But how does Man know?  Is there "good" (good being the assumption that God is completely comprised of "good") in "sin" (sin being all that is contrary to God)?  Is there "sin" in "good"?  

As much as I dislike binary comparisons, the absence of one can seemingly be an appropriate indicator of the other.  It is hard to prove otherwise.

As a side note, God is the greatest of the great.  If He is of one "type", how would He best define a differing "type"?  Would He not compare to Himself as there is nothing greater?  

--
lucas

[Arthur]

How does man know?  Man partook of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Our eyes are opened.  

I don't know what you mean by "good in sin" or "sin in good".  The Bible isn't so philisophical as people often are and try to make it out to be.  The Bible frames it's lessons in the stories of people's lives and brings it down to human terms.  For example,  "Thou shalt not commit adultery."  Is there any question about what is right and what is wrong in that statement?  We know what adultery is, and we know that God says not to do it.  If we do it, we sin.  Obviously.

I think the following passage best addresses the issue at hand:

"13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. 16 Do not err, my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."  James 1

What is sin?  A person making the choice to persue his lust for evil.  
What is good?  That which comes from God.

Conclusion.  Evil is in the world.  Man is sinful in that he knows good and evil yet chooses evil because he wants and prefers it to good. Good is in the world and comes from God alone.

I don't want to leave it there, of course we know that God, in his goodness, has given us a Redeemer.   Sin is no longer the master of the redeemed, regenerated man, who now can and wishes to choose good rather than evil.

Arthur

[Oscar]

Verne,

To find a boll weavel, just locate an abandoned cotton field in east Texas or Mississippi.  They are little bugs that eat the cotton out of the pod, (boll), before it is ready to open.

In Luke 13:1-5, Jesus encountered the idea that evil things happen to people as a retribution for their sins.

His reply was "I tell you, no".  

What he said was something like, "All you guys are just as bad".  It would follow that if natural evil were a punishment for evil acts, something of that nature should happen to everyone.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Verne,

You wrote,

"While it may appear that some kinds of evil have a quality of fortuitousness to them, I think there may be another way  of looking at this. I have a bit of a problem with the concept of "natural evil" because I think all unforunate events that affect "innocent" people, even "naturally" ocurring ones - hurricanes, earthquakes, are ultimately attributable to the creation's fallen condition, which in turn is attributable to sin. "

Most evangelicals believe that "creation is fallen".  This is nowhere specifically taught in scripture!

The book of Genesis describes the fall in very specific terms.

The "curse is described, but in very specific terms.  
for the serpent, it is, travel on your belly, eat dust, get your head bruised.

For Eve, more babies, subordination to Adam.

For Adam, "cursed is the ground", hard work, return to dust.
Nothing there about water, air, stars, animals, or anything else.

This hardly constitutes a curse on the entire universe!

Now, I know the argument that most folks make for a universal effect of the curse is based on their reading of Romans 8:18-25.  But if you will notice...the curse is not mentioned in this passage at all!  The passage deals with creation.  (Something God said is "very good")

People just read their pre-concieved notion into the passage, which talks about creation.  The word translated "corruption" in the NASV is phthora and simply means "decay".  It is rendered, "perishable" in I Cor 15:42, speaking of what happens to dead bodies.

It simply means the decay principle that we see all through the universe.  Depending on the context, we refer to it as "entropy" or "the second law of thermodynamics".  But it is easy to infer from Genesis' description of creation that entropy was a characteristic of the universe before the fall.

Examples:
1. The whole earth was covered with water.  No entropy, no chemical bonds, no H20.
2. Light existed before the fall.  No entropy, no photons can be produced.
3. Adam and Eve ate.  Entropy is a factor in the digestion process.
4. Adam and Eve breathed.  No entropy, they would have suffocated by the carbon dioxide produced in their own bodies and breathed out.  It would not have mixed with the surrounding oxygen due to pressure/temperature differentials.

An on and on.

So, I think the "universal fall" of nature needs a little rethinking.  This obviously enters into the discussion of evil, but I would argue that it is a dead end.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux