Evil and God

Evil and God:

It has often been said "how can a good God allow so much evil in the world, therefore i can not believe in His existence" 

It has also often been said in the same breath: "The God of the Bible is genocidal, racist, sexist and generally a harsh and cruel God, especially when he murders his own Son, i can not believe in this God"

Two very powerful and emotionally charged statements. I can genuinely sympathise with the "feeling" of them - conjoined at the philosophical hip.   Either God is impotent or He's a tyrant. 

There are many variations of the afore mentioned statements, but i think it reasonable to agree that they are variations on a common theme/objection : I don't believe in God because He's useless and if he does exist he's too harsh. 

There is in general two aspects to such a question/problem statement that humanity brings to it: first there is the philosophical and rational response, that is the very fact that the statement / objection is an argument against God is premised on the foundation of a rational argument and a moral doctrine. The second is the very real and genuine emotional aspect - tied to our humanity and also linked to our heart and head via a moral doctrine. The latter i suggest is probably the stronger of the two but the former is just as important because essentially we are desire a coherent answer to an emotional reaction. That is we reject God's existence because we can not find a coherent answer to the question - i.e. who wants to believe in a contradictory God?

In essence both statements have a moral doctrine, for all denunciation requires a moral framework from which to denounce another, and both offer opposite ends of the spectrum as to what God "ought" to do in the face of evil. The ought is inextricably tied to the moral doctrine of which we have two competing and diametrically opposed frameworks: one is that He ought to stop evil but doesn't and is impotent, the other is that He stops (supposed) evil but we do not like the method or the outcome.

Now the moral denunciation is an interesting argument because as it requires a moral justification to denounce anothers as immoral. In doing so when we reject God's existence on the basis that He is breaking a moral code we have imposed on Him then we have to ask ourselves : which doctrine is the correct one if it's not God's and more so which one given God does not exist? If you are like me you tend to take morality for granted and as "assumed", but when you really really reflect on it, morality is extremely subjective to the individual that there is little in common to the person next to us. It is like the statement: all religions are essentially the same just different on the outside. But i would strongly contend that all religions (including atheistic and agnostic world views) are all inherently very very different with few similarities on the surface. For example they all differ on God(s), heaven hell, salvation, morality, death life, origin and purpose. Much the same with morality - sex, marriage, words, lying, refugees, environment, money, tax, friendship, parenting, education, health care, social welfare, business ethics, war and defence, scientific discovery, sexuality, drug use, alcohol consumption, capital punishment etc.  So before the rejection of God is concluded based on his non existence on his non existent moral code we start to deflate our reason for rejecting him because He didn't do something He "ought".  

What i think many (not all) are actually suggesting is that they reject the God of the Bible and Jesus because he's broken a moral code, but hope for a better God somewhere else.  But let us park that for today. 

When i read the Old Testament in particular, if we read especially the historical records (i.e not Proverbs, or Song of Solomon) of the OT, then we are witnessing ("supposed" to the skeptic) actual events, of person place and activity. Writings of events, no matter how young or old, are always incomplete in describing and recording every detail. And so when read God ordering the Jews to "drive out" the Canaanites or destroy the Amalkalites in Deuteronomy and 1 Samuel,  in a few chapters it is difficult to comprehend. More so difficult to reconcile such behaviour with a God who is (to our liking) to love and be peaceful - like Gandhi or our impression of him anyway. 

In essence if God is to be loving and rational and coherent with a moral basis then does this activity seem incoherent? 

For many years what i had glossed over or not appreciated or simply not known is much of the context to these commands, that is the 400 years waiting for the iniquity of the Canaanites to repent, or the 120 years of waiting for the people in Noah's day to repent, or the child sacrifices to stop or the female forced prostitution to stop or the cannibalisation to cease ... Etc etc (these are all mentioned in the Bible and archaeological record).What i also did not understood is the ancient historical findings about the cultures and practices of these states and communities being so debauched. Furthermore an appreciation of language and transliteration of the authors intent, use of language, hyperbole and turn of phrase. (A simple example is when we say: "we destroyed and decimated the opposition", which means we beat them in soccor convincingly, but we did not murder them) 

Habbakuk (as do many many other prophets in the OT) records the lack of action by God well when he says: 

"How long, O LORD, must I call for help? But you do not listen! “Violence is everywhere!” I cry, but you do not come to save. Must I forever see these evil deeds? Why must I watch all this misery? Wherever I look, I see destruction and violence. I am surrounded by people who love to argue and fight. The law has become paralyzed, and there is no justice in the courts. The wicked far outnumber the righteous, so that justice has become perverted." (Habakkuk 1:2-4 NLT)

So indulge me for a minute: let me take a modern day view: if the situation was as egregious and despotic and evil as it was accounted for in certain cultures and practices of that day, what would the UN decide on doing if they existed then ?  That is, what "ought" the international community do ? Which really is what "ought" you and i to do individually and in supporting our governments? If there were nations systemically sacrificing their children on alters and offering up their young girls as temple prostitutes, if they were eating their own flesh, then what would the UN do? 

It is noteworthy that modern history is replete with examples of UN sanctioned invasions to stop Rwanda, East Timor, Bosnia, Sierra-Leone, Bangladesh.... And now Syria.  One of the philosophical arguments (and i am a novice on it) is called the "Just war theory" - the morally correct justification for war. 

If i study and read the Bible in its entirety and study the historical context, time frames, person place and event, and seek to read it through the lens of history, then transpose that a supposed Good God ordered the execution and dismantling of tribes and states that chose to stay and fight, then maybe, just maybe there could be a "just war".  Maybe, just maybe if i saw from "heavens view" all that was going on - then could it be justifiable that some form of intervention be sound?  There were no courtrooms, no jails, no penal correction system, no rehabilitation programs, no child counselling support services, no social welfare, no psychological analysis to explain that the systemic murder rape and child sacrifices of the community was down to poor genes and a psychological disorder known as "x" .... Etc 

But let me park that for a moment. 

Imagine that there is an all knowing, all powerful, all righteous, all loving God who made us for the the specific purpose of relationships - that is we come into existence through a relationship and we have our purpose and reason is fulfilled by relating to one another - with love being the fullest expression of our purpose. 

Now suppose then that the problem with ourselves is that we violate the purpose of our existence. We break relationship with another. For all relationship is dependant on a moral doctrine. Love is considered the highest ethic and it is fullied via a moral code. 

If that is true, then imagine that today this being the bloodiest most violent century than all the previous 19 put together, where babies are aborted and murdered at the rate of 10,000's a day for no other reason than they are a nuisance, wrong sex, possible physical issues.  Where there are 30 million people forced into slavery every year, where 10 million of them are young girls sacrificed on the beds of men who rape them for a few bucks. Where corruption is so systemic in the majority of government systems that laws with millions of pages are needed to try to stamp it out, billions of dollars are spent employing people to administer it and to try to keep it in order. Where 10 year old homeless boys are raped by bus drivers at shelters in cities, where people can sodomise babies after drinking snakes blood and vodka to have their fantasies fulfilled , where people can rape little children and babies in the hope their diseases will be cured, where adultery is so normal that the perpetrator is given more sympathy for their "sickness" than the betrayed, where fathers do not exist in certain communities because they do not accept their responsibilities, where leaders destroy their own people by 10's of millions. Where bombs blast schools, where it just not safe for even young women to walk around at dusk, where 95% of all women are raped or experience violence.  Where virtually every person in certain countries have been exposed to pornography including all their 11 year old children. Where men visiting certain countries are assumed as pedophiles because it is so prevalent.  Where churches and institutions systematically cover up child sexual abuse, the stealing of monies and the psychological abuse of it's members. Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc ......................... It sounds like the OT does it not? Maybe even worse? 

Now what kind of a reaction should this all powerful all righteous God do? What would be a morally right action to take? What should God  do? And by who's standard? Would it be reasonable to "drive out the child slave traffickers?" The men and women who pay money for the sodomizing of babies? The purveyors of corruption that ensure millions are destroyed and brutalized? Suppose this God Knows all things, can see the actions and thoughts of all and therefore know that Him being the ultimate judge is capable of accurately sentencing them? 

What also if, this God being all knowing and a righteous judge, provided a choice for the children who's lives had been cut short a choice between choosing a relationship with God or not at all in the next life ?

I think it's fair and reasonable that if this God exists then when compared to the OT cultures and times on a macro scale, maybe today's society is not any better than then, possibly even worse (depending on who's standard). 

It reminds me of British writer and social observer of the 20th century Aldous Huxley wrote: 

      

“We are living now, not in the delicious intoxication induced by the early successes of science, but in a rather grisly morning-after, when it has become apparent that what triumphant science has done hitherto is to improve the means for achieving unimproved or actually deteriorated ends.”

Would it not be reasonable if that be true that God should scatter, dismantle, destroy communities that are doing such acts today? To stop the passing on of evil to the next generation? To stop the evils and travesties that await the next generation and give children a place of peace love and perfection in [heaven]. 

But what if there was 10 innocent people in that community? Or 5 or 1? Would God be wrong to destroy or dismantle them? It seems He would hold back judgment when Abraham asks that of God about the communities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

In Auschwitz, there is a quotation above one of the gas chambers from Hitler : 

"I want to raise a generation of people devoid of a conscious, imperious, relentless and cruel" 

And he was well on his way to achieving that. 

Now imagine he had been successful in "birthing" such a community? 

Do we not see this in micro communities and tribes in parts of Africa and Asia - Child soldiers... Or families selling their children. Or in various European blocks bringing up communities in the child and women trafficking trade. Or sub communities in various parts of the cities we live in? 

What if we knew (as history shows with systematic consistency) that the evil and depravity of cultures are passed on to the next generation and gather in other surrounding cultures to make them submit to a prevailing one. 

This particularly reminds me of the events of the Jews in the OT, where they conquered and drove out tribes and God gave them commandments to not intermingle as they would become corrupted by their culture, beliefs and practices. And that is exactly what happened, time and time again. Israel turns to God they prosper, they get fat and self reliant and they embrace the surrounding tribes by taking on their ways and before you know it they are sacrificing their children on alters again, murdering their own kinsmen for power struggles. 

I think to suggest that a culture and tradition stands still is to forget that when there is not a foundational framework of PURPOSE, then we revert back to our individual desires and proclivities and we bring others in or we get sucked in ourselves. 

I think of various Aboriginal communities that have had generations of self destruction passed on - how do they stop the internal bleeding (so to speak)? Money is not the answer, government programs may help but do not treat the issue. A world view, a culture needs to overtake it, that penetrates the heart and soul. 

So we know that there was not a man made international law court, peacekeepers and armies ready to dismantle despotic regimes and cultures in the OT. But there was God. His actions may seem harsh on the surface but i think there is much much more to it. 

On the flip side the seemingly lack of action of God allowing so much evil to occur, brings with it so many presuppositions into that perspective that deserves a much longer post.

In short when we say evil, what do we mean? When we say "ought" to intervene to stop evil, what defines the "ought". That is on what threshold should God intervene and stop the evil?  Should He stop the evil you and i are to commit and if so how or should He stop evil "out there"? Who's definition of evil are we using and is that the definition God uses?  

I don't ask these questions flippantly or disparagingly, but a recognition they need to be answered before we can coherently begin to answer the question. 

In short i am yet to find a solid reasonable and coherent justification of an objective moral framework without a transcendent author of mankind. It may exist but it has been recognised by many atheistic philosophers like Sartre and Flew that a transcendent being is required. 

The general argument goes as such: 

If there is such a thing as evil there must be a thing as good.

If there is such a thing as good and evil then there must a moral law on which to determine what is good and evil.

If there is such a moral law then there has to be a moral law giver.

Yet that moral law giver (being God) does not exist.

If God does not exist, then a moral author is non existent

if there is no moral author there is no moral law

If there is no moral law then there is no such thing as good and evil 

If there is no evil then what was the non existent God suppose to stop occurring ? 

Philosopher, Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College at Vancouver, John Stackhouse made the comment on ABC's Q&A when asked about the seemingly "lack of" action by God today:

JOHN STACKHOUSE: Well, that's, I think, the crucial question is that if God wants me to continue to trust him as an all-good and all-powerful God when he manifestly seems not to be one or the other or both, then he’d better give me a jolly good reason to trust him anyway and God hasn't given me any account, any daily briefing about why he is allowing the atrocities here and why he is allowing them there and they go back since the dawn of time.

TONY JONES: Well, is that where faith comes in? Because, as we know, plenty of Holocaust survivors actually lost their faith once they saw the real dark side of human nature and realised that God was never going to intervene?

JOHN STACKHOUSE: Well, indeed, I think that post-Holocaust theology among my Jewish friends is a very daunting and very dark place because, for them, there is no ground on which to continue to believe in God that is strong enough to outweigh the grounds to not believe in God and that, to me, is the real question. It's not necessarily whether God explains to me what he is going to do. I'm not sure I have the mental or the moral capacity to be able to judge whether God is doing a good job in the world. I think he is not doing a very good job often, but I'm not sure I'm capable to judge that. But if he wants my allegiance, he jolly well better give me a very good reason to trust him anyway and for the Christian, that answer is Jesus. That answer is looking at this figure, whom Christians believe is the very face of God. So if God is like that, then I can trust this hidden god who seems to be making a mess of the world. And if he not like that, then I am really in a much difficult situation. So, Tony, for me, as a Christian who looks at the world like anybody else does, if I don't have Jesus, I frankly am going to be an atheist because, like my Jewish friends post-Holocaust, God actually doesn't seem to be doing a very good job running things.

I think Professor Stackhouse summarises the argument succinctly. 

If God paid the highest price for something that He thought and felt was of immeasurable worth: you and me, then even though i can't comprehensively get my head around all that occurs, but presents me with the image of Himself in Jesus, then that gives me enough confidence that He knows what He's doing. 

Moreover if God intervened in various acts of evil, then it would extend that Jesus would never have been crucified.  Yet God did not intervene - for my sake and yours: "Father take this cup from me, but Father not my will but yours be done".

So in conclusion to the question/ objection of not believing in God because a) he's impotent and b) he's way to harsh and contradicts His own commands; i hope we agree that the question is actually very very important and more so the answer. To suggest that because of evil and its treatment by God is inappropriate according to our own sensibilities presents i think a more difficult position to defend. 

For the atheist, they then have to justify many aspects just to get to the starting line of the original objection. 

Fro example: how does the atheist get a moral personal life out of an impersonal amoral first cause and non moral process (evolution)? How does the atheist explain information and intelligence from nothing? How does the atheist explain rationality and reason from chaos ? How do they defend evil when it requires a purpose as defined beyond itself? How can an atheist explain person hood from non person hood? How does evolution bring you to an objective morality? How does an atheist explain an unnatural act when naturalism is all there is?  What is the atheists explanation of the evil in the world and where did it come from? How does the atheist address the malady?  How does the atheist explain the value and belief in a thought as the most powerful attribute of a person yet it has no matter and can not be measured in the physical world? 

For the pantheist or Buddhist or agnostic the same questions apply. 

I do not ask the questions to be arrogant or argumentative. Rather suggesting that though we can negate another perspective, we also need to be able to defend an alternate position. That is we can't just point out others mistakes, we have to also defend our own ground, especially given we are using a moral and rational platform to denounce another, and more so rejecting the existence of a person (God) based on the premise of a morality that we have yet to define and an evil we have yet to agree on that has arisen from nothing to matter + time + chance. 

The Majesty of Righteousness Part V : The Crucifixion

Gents, this will likely be our final meeting and closure of Ironmen in its current format.

Today we are finishing off the series "The Majesty of Righteousness".

Basically, if you read Romans Ch 3, then today's discussion can be summed up in that chapter.

Let's recount what we have covered so far:

1. The Moral Argument - you can not have evil and suffering without a moral law and the moral law needs to transcend mankind.

2. The definition of evil - in order to have a moral law, we need to define what then is evil - it is the aberration of purpose. Purpose requires a pre-requisite of an intention and design

3. Justice needs to occur for a moral law, otherwise it is useless

4. Sacredness of sin - in order for justice to exist, it needs a judge and it needs to treat sin, irrespective of how big or small we might think it is, with the weight and punishment it deserves.

So today, it all comes down to the Crucifixion and what it represents, what it symbolises, what it demonstrates of God's character, how He views sin, why He did it, what it reflects back to mankind and what's in our hearts and what power it has out of such weakness.

If we come back to the original accusation about God:
"If God exists, how can there be so much suffering and evil in the world? How can He allow it to exist.  I don't believe in God because there is so much evil in the world"

Let me remind us of what Muggeridge once said:

"The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality, yet it is the most intellectually resistant fact".

Reinhold Niebhour said:

"No amount of evidence to the contrary seems to shake man's grand opinion of himself".

Let's take a look at the Crucifixion:

Jesus was "scourged" - 39 lashings (1 less than 40 in case they miscounted) with a whip with bone and rock in the leather strands Designed to rip the flesh from your body so that you would be almost dead, passed out from pain and or loss of blood.

Crown of thorns was placed on his head, with thick strong thorns pressed down deep into his cranium

Bashed and punched while in a state of indescribable pain by soldiers

Spat at, ridiculed, hit and whacked with weapons, taunted, degraded.

Whipped and shoved while having to carry his own death trap through a crowd jeering at him, coming to watch the spectacle.

7 inch nails hammered into his palms, between bones to ensure the weight of his body would not rip his hands off the crossbeam.

Nails driven into his feet smashing through bone to ensure he could no come off.

Naked, scourged, dripping with blood, jeered at and mocked, spat at, hit, demeaned, no single minuscule treatment, word or act of dignity usually afforded a human being.

Given a death process that ensures maximum pain over the longest and most painful period possible - death by asphyxiation. Every breath more painful and slightly shorter than the one before as your lungs collapse because you can not push your body back up, your internal organs slowly sag, unable to breath over many hours or up to days.

And this done to a man in a kangaroo court in front of what was to become the forbearer or the Western world.
A death process so bad, that it was banned in the 2nd Century.
No cross examination, no jury, no counter perspective, instead a political outcome that ensures Pilot keeps his reign and the Religious leaders get their outcome. The person trampled underfoot for the opposing sides gains. And we say politics is a dirty game. Add religion into it and it becomes deadly.

What does it reflect ?

What do you think God is trying to reflect back you and me? He's holding up a mirror to mankind and the content of his heart.

And if you or I or anyone thinks that "that was then, but we are civilised now", then take a look at the first 5 pages of todays newspaper. Read modern history of the 20th century. Watch documentaries on Slavery, Sex trafficking, read books about the GFC, corporations that have raped and pillaged the countryside or communities like James Hardy, Erin Brokovich....

In the 19 and 20th centuries the "rationalists" and "positivists" philosophies came to the fore, that out of rational thought and the empirical verifiable scientific mechanisms, these would solve and address our problems. It only gave rise to the bloodiest century ever known to mankind - 230Million people murdered or killed on wars. More than all put together in the previous 19 centuries.

You know it's fascinating and rightly so, that the media caught wind of the degradation of the Iraqi soldiers by the US troops and that torture was condemned as a mechanism to extract information.
Why - because it meant that the dignity of a human being was trampled on and that was sacred territory. A human being has some intrinsic rights the world recognised and what the US did was in breach of that.

And then we have Jesus's story.

It doesn't matter any way you want to slice and dice his experience up, it is depravity so deep at so many levels, that its difficult to comprehend.

I get so much that God is holding a mirror to mankind saying: see how much I love you, that I will take the worst possible process and form of execution and still triumph with love.

See how much I love you I will provide the justice for all the sin in the world, from the smallest to the biggest by imputing your innocence through my Son's guilt payment.

no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

Romans 3:20

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Chris Hitchens amongst many others have lambasted the fictional God and his Son's death as wicked, evil, that a father would sacrifice his own son, that a scapegoat is morally reprehensible.
"How could a father willingly sacrifice his son so that others can get off scot free?"
Let me rephrase it:
"How could a God allow so much suffering in the world and let the perpetrators get away with it?"

Can you see the irony, the self destruction creeping in.

You see the Crucifixion is so much more than just a process of death and resurrection. It is a clear representation of man's propensity for evil and God's triumph over evil through love.
The mere fact that he treats our sin with the sacredness it deserves and provides a way out of my malady is breathtaking.

The majestic nature of being made right before the holy and righteous God, in love and truth with true justice, and true redemption of my heart.

NEVER EVER EVER FORGET WHAT THE CROSS REPRESENTS.

The Majesty of Righteousness Part 4: Sacredness of my sin

Part 1: The moral argument
Part 2: What is the definition of evil
Part 3: The justice system
Part 4: Sacredness of my sin
next week:
Part 5: The majesty of the crucifixion

Last meet up when we were discussing a Justice and judgement system, we finished by discussing on one hand a person states God is powerless and incompetent because He allows so much evil to occur and then in the same breadth flips back and accuses Him of being a harsh unfair God by damning people to Hell. 

All the time while denying His actual existence and so basing God on a book written by humans, fictitiously made up about an imaginary figure  - which begs the question: who is this powerless harsh God? 

Either He exists or doesn't and if He does then He is either a Holy righteous Judge or not at all? 

The majestic nature of Christ's Righteousness is breath-taking: God creates mankind for relationship in the expression of love and treats your sins and mine as sacred and of the utmost importance by providing a payment for them through the Crucifixion of His Son.  We stand in the dock righteous before God when we shouldn't be. Breath-taking when one thinks of the gravitas of that offer of grace while also treating evil with the weightiness it deserves. 

I guess i would ask the skeptic- Inversely if God ignored the evils committed by mankind then what does it say of His character?  To the raped woman, to the transgressed business partner to the abused child, to the lie that u and i said today...

Have you ever asked yourself: Is sin sacred? That is, DO I afford it the weight it deserves ?  Moreover, does God? 

Wouldn't it be ironic if we were more concerned with our Sin and the Sin of others than God was?  Moreover we were more concerned that we received the appropriate due punishment and "just deserts" of our sin than God was…..

As an aside but analogous  I heard Bill Johsnon recall from a friend of his that said "When we beseech and beg God to heal someone, we're assuming we want them healed more than God does" 

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" [Romans 6:23]

and

"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do" [Ephesians 2:1-10]

What do other world views say of sin?

Buddhism:

From a conversation I had with a Buddhist on grace and forgiveness: 

Ben, I know is once u have bad karma due to bad deeds, it can not be cleared or erased at all. You can only do more good deeds to get good karma, meaning it will make bad karma less in portion. Like a cup of water, once it's dirty u can't just get rid of the dirt. You can only add clean water to dilute the thickness of dirt. Bad karma can not disappear by such things as forgiveness since what is done is already done.

I  think in buddhism we rely on ourselves to do good to fix our bad karma rather than rely on a superior being to erase our bad karma (sins). We are all considered to have our own buddha nature. So there is no need forgiveness by anyone but only to correct ourselves. We are responsible for our own karma not buddha or superior being

Neale Walsch - new age author, states in his conversation with god (God?) about the question of accountability of people like Hitler (because Hitler was REALLY bad, unlike you and me who are just a little bit bad and mostly good) is that there is no "good" or "bad", there "just is" and that Hitler did the Jews a favour by releasing them from life to heaven: "The mistakes Hitler made did no harm or damage to those whose deaths he caused. Those souls were released from their earthly bondage, like butterflies emerging from a cocoon"

Atheist: Sins do not exist - remember Part 1. Rather they may be a preference, but sin is a man made fictions ideology so to Justice. 

Has one ever thought of the fact that the majority of ills today are relationally based or causal from a relationship.  Therefore would it not infer that a requirement of God to "care" about sins would have to be personable, relatable and involved? 

The pantheist, atheist, agnostic, Buddhist have no answer for this.

"How can God exist when there is so much evil in the world…….?"
[implying: what are you doing about it God because I don't see much justice / action going on here…]
Funny: you seem so concerned with the sin "out there" that God isn't doing anything about, what about your own sin? 

John 3;16 speaks afresh... 

The majesty of righteousness - Part III : Justice

The majesty of righteousness
Part 3

So we have looked at the moral argument, then the definition of evil and now we look at justice.

Righteousness - the quality of being morally right or justifiable.

In order for justice to exist it must have the following structures in place:

A moral law giver
A moral law
A law keeper with the authority
A judiciary with the authority to carry out judgements
A penal system

Now that is in the natural world, but it is also in the meta-physical world. For example i am not allowed to steal your idea - it's non material.

But what of all the added thoughts that invade our mind?
Lust, jealousy, hate, malice, deception, backstabbing, envy, bitterness, greed....
They're all non physical, immaterial, of no immediate consequence or of no consequence if not carried out.... Yet that is exactly what Jesus calls out.
"Whatever a man thinketh, so is he"
"Guard your heart for it is the wellspring of your life"
"A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. (‭Luke‬ ‭6‬:‭45‬ NIV)"

You know it's interesting that the law today can convict someone with "intent" [to harm someone] even though they have not done it.

It says that even in a secular society we recognise the depravity of our hearts.  Furthermore the law recognises the harm done by such thoughts.

So if evil is the misappropriation of purpose and evil requires a moral law about purpose then where does Justice come into play?

If my evil is predominately relationally based then i am at the mercy of someone that can read my heart if justice is to prevail?

Who can do that with truth?

Why is it that we rage against injustice and protest and start wars when we see it out there, yet we don't consider it in our own lives, we cut ourselves some slack, tell our inner person: "ohhh gee i'm not THAT bad".  Or better still we tell ourselves "geesh at least no one saw that!"

Isn't that all evil gone unpunished ? No matter how small or big we think it is?

And here's another point: who decides the appropriate penalty? What is a "just" punishment? Big or small?

If one is to ascribe a penal system on the breakage of the law then one would have to be the author of the code and the correlating penalty.
Inversely wouldn't it be amiss if the author of the law was not the same person who then determined the penalty?

It's a slippery, moving jelly target when trying to marry the two ideals which are inextricably linked to each other at the hip.
A law without justice is useless. Look at Libya - 40 years ruled by a despot - a law that overthrew God's law and injustice prevails.

So my question: when we say " how can God allow so much evil to occur - and so much injustice to prevail?!" What are we really saying?

Finally : we often like the idea of retribution, in fact it gives us comfort, we say "karma is going to get you" becuase it gives us comfort for 5 minutes. Yet we know - it's unsatisfactory. Why?!

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God. (‭John‬ ‭3‬:‭16-21‬ NIV)

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” (‭Romans‬ ‭2‬:‭1-6‬ NIV)

Fascinating that God explicidly says he will judge - yet at the same time we say what a darstadly judgemental God He is... Romans 2 sums up the contradiction beautifully.

Either God is just or not at all - He can be neither in between.

Foreign Same Sex Marriage Bill

http://preservingmarriage.acl.org.au

The Majesty of Righteousness Part 2: Evil

So last week, we had the introduction to "The Moral Argument".

Why was this necessary? Because in order for us to understand the magnificence of Righteousness, there has to be a moral framework in order to ascribe to a person: they are righteous before [God].

And because at the bottom of this, supporting our desire for truth, justice, punishment and reward, then a moral code has to exist on which to differentiate between right and wrong, good and bad.

Last week we went through some examples of evil - current and Biblical.

So if we accept that God is necessary for a [objective] moral law on which to differentiate between good and bad, let's define bad, or evil.

How do we describe / define evil?

e·vil

  [ee-vuhl]  Show IPA

adjective

1.

morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.

2.

harmful; injurious: evil laws.

3.

characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evildays.

4.

due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.

5.

marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Ravi Zacharias, defined evil this way: The misuse of something other than what it's intended purpose was for [that does not produce good].

Before we move from "How can a God of all love and power allow so much evil to occur", we HAVE TO define what evil is.

The Bible defines evil in two categories - between each other and between ourself and God.

Evil (without God) is also broken into "natural evil" and morally evil. (human induced).

Given that the majority of our problems in this world are relationally based the latter is what we're talking about today.

If we accept the definition as "the misuse of something other than what its intended purpose was for", then we have to ask ourselves, what is the purpose and intent for mankind?

Answer: To be in relationship with each other and God.

Now you can see where this is going....

For example, what do the 10 commandments state:
How to conduct relationships - first between God our yourself secondly between each other.

IF as an atheist or agnostic, the question of evil and suffering occurs and hence the reason God can't exist, then the atheist must therefore define what evil is? Then what a moral law is and then who the author of that moral law is when there is just time+matter+chance that brought all this into existence with no purpose, no intent, no moral law...

"Not one proponent of evolutionary ethics has explained how an impersonal, amoral first cause through a non moral process has produced a moral basis of life - especially as they simultaneously deny any objective moral basis of good and evil".

Can you see that in order to have righteousness, we need to agree on purpose and intention of the person, then a moral law and a moral law giver.

Have you ever noted that a moral law is always about a person or for a person. Moral law is relationally based..... what was God doing in the desert with the Jews - giving them a framework for relationships in order that humanity would FULFILL their purpose of existence.

Jesus said: I have come to FULFILL the law and the prophets.....

Resources: http://www.gotquestions.org/definition-of-evil.html

Why I joined the Board of African Enterprise

“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic”

Stalin.

How many people have been destroyed in Africa in the last 50 years?

If 231 Million died by war or conflict globally in the 20^th century, one would suggest Africa had its fair share.

Rwanda, Congo, Sierra-Leone, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Sudan, Egypt, Somalia, Ivory Coast, Milawi and yes who can forget Uganda.

Feeling overwhelmed ? Too big a burden for little old me? - I am.

Is secular education the answer?

UN Peacekeepers?

Government Aid?

Water pumps, food drops….

Before answers are prescribed, i need to know a diagnosis first. A doctor prescribing aspirin for cancer based on the symptoms of a migraine is clearly not going to help.

Finally someone diagnoses the problem:

The strongly outspoken atheist journalist Matthew Parris from the British masthead, The Times wrote the following in a highly provocative article titled: “As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God”.

“Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.”

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/3502-matthew-parris-as-an-atheist-i-truly-believe-africa-needs-god

My wife and I support 5 children in Africa through Compassion, Child Fund and Irene Gleeson Foundation.

It’s an excellent start, a worthy investment.

We also support Opportunity International and have funded several “trust banks” in the African continent to support the grass-roots micro finance revolution taking place.

A “must have” organisation to partner with to address grass roots poverty.

Each Trust Bank supports upwards of 800 people and the money get’s repaid and re-loaned – a brilliant way out of poverty.

I say this only to say, the practical help is important – Nim and I try to put our money where our mouth is….

…..are these the answers before a diagnosis?  Is poverty symptomatic of something more egregious? Is more money the answer, more aid?

Perhaps in of itself not, excellent and good as they are, I say this with a reflective salient countenance; Matthew Parris nails the problem bulls-eye!

“Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.

And I'm afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.”

If it weren’t for the fact that Mr Parris intensely dislikes a world view that includes God, but that he being a Brit raised in Africa, works in London and went back to his childhood land, admits the value of a Christ filled world view on people, is breath-taking.  Finally someone from outside Christendom who sees the issue at its core.  It’s not just Christians calling it out.

The Answer

“A whole belief system must first be supplanted [by a Christ based one]”.

If one can invest all the worlds resource into a society(s) that has a false ideology then is it going to fix the problem or just Band-Aid it?

What does African Enterprise have to do with it?

How about this:

-       Reaches on average 1,000,000 people a year in evangelism to hear the message of faith hop and love, repentance and an invitation to have a transformed heart and spirit

-       Provides aid to several hundred thousand people a year

-       Trains up local leaders in local churches to reach their local community

-       Works with governments, community leaders to bring about fundamental change to what Matthew Parris describes as ideologies based on superstition, the big man gangsta and fear

-       Focuses on working with local city based churches across denominations.

Did you know that:

-       About 30,000 people a day make first time decisions to be reconciled with God and their fellow people in Africa

o  That’s is roughly 30,000 people a day saying: “Lord, forgive me, teach me, fill me with your holy spirit, help me follow you help me love you as my fellow man with all my heart mind soul and strength”

-       Estimated 1,200 new churches are planted each month

-       Predicated over the next 20-30 years that the majority of Africans will be residing in the major cities (a mass internal urban migration from the countryside)

-       AE was started over 50 years ago by Michael Cassidy

-       They have been endorsed from Billy Graham to Bishop Desmond Tutu

What can you do?

Like me, 2 things you can do:

1.   Pray for AE – sign up here to their prayer diary: http://www.africanenterprise.com/en/australia/you-can/prayer/

2.   Give – either time or money: http://www.africanenterprise.com/en/australia/you-can/giving/

Wether it’s $50 or $100 a month or $5,000 as a one off, it all gets used.

Please pray for the Board and more so the team at AE.

The 20^th century has been the bloodiest and most violent century man has ever known. The message of hope and reconciliation, forgiveness and the chance to have a person’s heart transformed by the Holy Spirit is what is needed most.  If you support other charities I commend you, continue to do so.

For me AE was an easy choice, it didn’t replace the practical material support Nim and I give, AE just gets added.

Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGbXbOyJ16k&list=UU4xeeOVUHxkufdEq06pyllA&index=9