Albert Einstein did not drop the bomb on Hiroshima, any more than God crucified Christ, but one can see an inevitability,
Albert was neither powerful enough to stop a war in some other way, nor knowledgeable enough to be able to predict the future. Which makes him so qualitatively different from God-as-she-are-spoken that I don't think this analogy is useful in analyzing the situation.
"God knowingly committed evil but good came of it" is like arguing "a mugger beat you up and permanently paralyzed you, but you met the love of your life in the emergency room, therefore it is appropriate that I not only forgive the mugger, but celebrate--indeed, worship--him and follow his commands."
I don't find this a compelling argument to forgive someone who hurts somebody else. For me to use it to forgive someone who hurt *me* would at least be ethically defensible. But I am not the injured party here.
And the whole argument, as I understand it, is that God intended from the beginning for Jesus to be tortured to death--that was Jesus's *destiny*. So, while there is plenty of blame to go around, excusing God by blaming human free will seems...unjustified. It's a very common move in these sorts of arguments, but I don't think it's right.
If I abandoned a drunk friend when I saw a rapist moving in on her--*intending* that she should be raped, I would be blameworthy even though I didn't commit the rape with my own..err...hands. And *I* am not all powerful or all knowing--I can be hurt or killed and I have good reason to be afraid; I have evil impulses and sometimes I give in to them. Yet people still (and rightly) expect better behavior from me than they would--*do*, apparently-- from God, who abandoned his own child, *intending* that he should be crucified.
As for supposing there is an evil Authority over God, that he didn't *want* to commit this cruel act but he *had* to because a more powerful entity forced him--again we have departed so far from God-as-she-are-spoke that I don't think this is a useful argument for analyzing the mystery. If there were an evil Authority that had the power to push God around, the Evil Authority would be God, by definition, and the original God becomes a sort of Angel--someone under the thumb of God.
Yes, why not forgive people their sins--since both the sins and the human nature that makes people commit them were handed down by God-- without this cruel play of having his own child tortured to death? Why NOT? WHY not?
I think you dismiss the question too soon.
I think what is going on here is that originally Jewish culture called for gaining forgiveness for your sins by "paying a fine to God" in the form of valuable livestock, traditionally a lamb. This makes perfect sense (I mean, presupposing a belief in God, of course), and is moral if you think of the lamb as property.
Jesus got mixed up in people's minds with that lamb. The lamb is put to death for something it didn't do--Jesus is put to death for something he didn't do; it seems kind of equivalent if you don't think too hard about Jesus being a human being and not a possession. But the lamb was a possession and thus a fine and Jesus was an innocent human being--and the moral ramifications of that are considerable.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-04-30 01:14 pm (UTC)Albert was neither powerful enough to stop a war in some other way, nor knowledgeable enough to be able to predict the future. Which makes him so qualitatively different from God-as-she-are-spoken that I don't think this analogy is useful in analyzing the situation.
"God knowingly committed evil but good came of it" is like arguing "a mugger beat you up and permanently paralyzed you, but you met the love of your life in the emergency room, therefore it is appropriate that I not only forgive the mugger, but celebrate--indeed, worship--him and follow his commands."
I don't find this a compelling argument to forgive someone who hurts somebody else. For me to use it to forgive someone who hurt *me* would at least be ethically defensible. But I am not the injured party here.
And the whole argument, as I understand it, is that God intended from the beginning for Jesus to be tortured to death--that was Jesus's *destiny*. So, while there is plenty of blame to go around, excusing God by blaming human free will seems...unjustified. It's a very common move in these sorts of arguments, but I don't think it's right.
If I abandoned a drunk friend when I saw a rapist moving in on her--*intending* that she should be raped, I would be blameworthy even though I didn't commit the rape with my own..err...hands. And *I* am not all powerful or all knowing--I can be hurt or killed and I have good reason to be afraid; I have evil impulses and sometimes I give in to them. Yet people still (and rightly) expect better behavior from me than they would--*do*, apparently-- from God, who abandoned his own child, *intending* that he should be crucified.
As for supposing there is an evil Authority over God, that he didn't *want* to commit this cruel act but he *had* to because a more powerful entity forced him--again we have departed so far from God-as-she-are-spoke that I don't think this is a useful argument for analyzing the mystery. If there were an evil Authority that had the power to push God around, the Evil Authority would be God, by definition, and the original God becomes a sort of Angel--someone under the thumb of God.
Yes, why not forgive people their sins--since both the sins and the human nature that makes people commit them were handed down by God-- without this cruel play of having his own child tortured to death? Why NOT? WHY not?
I think you dismiss the question too soon.
I think what is going on here is that originally Jewish culture called for gaining forgiveness for your sins by "paying a fine to God" in the form of valuable livestock, traditionally a lamb. This makes perfect sense (I mean, presupposing a belief in God, of course), and is moral if you think of the lamb as property.
Jesus got mixed up in people's minds with that lamb. The lamb is put to death for something it didn't do--Jesus is put to death for something he didn't do; it seems kind of equivalent if you don't think too hard about Jesus being a human being and not a possession. But the lamb was a possession and thus a fine and Jesus was an innocent human being--and the moral ramifications of that are considerable.