#theodicy

[girls--complex]

[queenlucythevaliant]

For what it means is this, among other things: that for whatever reason God chose to make man as he is—limited and suffering and subject to sorrows and death—he had the honesty and courage to take his own medicine. Whatever game he is playing with his creation, he has kept his own rules and played fair. He can exact nothing from man that he has not exacted from himself. He has himself gone through the whole of human experience, from the trivial irritations of family life and the cramping restrictions of hard work and lack of money to the worst horrors of pain and humiliation, defeat, despair, and death. When he was a man, he played the man. He was born in poverty and died in disgrace and thought it well worthwhile.

Dorothy Sayers on the Incarnation, "The Greatest Drama Ever Staged" (emphasis mine)

[straynoahide]

tolkien meta: the melodic structure of the ainulindale, arda's endgame, and the doom of men

so basically this is about what one can learn and connect to the rest of the legendarium's lore from the ainulindale, and also peer into tolkien's psyche as a side effect i guess. expect excessive theology or more fun imo philosophy of divinity and lengthy tangents about melkor, the nature of evil and theodicy

a small disclaimer - this touches thorny topics in philosophy like the problem of evil, the nature of redemption/salvation, death...

this isn't about my beliefs but presenting and reflecting on tolkien's own within the history of ideas. i acknowledge anyone who reads this also has their own, and can agree or disagree with tolkien. my views may seep in unintentionally but i try to go deeper than that.

pd: I write Eru/One/God indistinctively on purpose. it's for rhetorical emphasis, not so much out of (cultural) christianity.

part I - introduction (in this post) part II - the themes/structure, discussion part III - discussion (cont): themes of arda and life part IV - discussion (cont 2): theme of the children part V - discussion (cont 3): aftermath/second music

Introduction (i rec reading even if you're versed in the lore)

for those who are not so familiar with parts of the legendarium but still interested in a deep dive, the ainulindalë ("song of the ainur") is the creation myth of tolkien's world.

i rec just reading it if you haven't even if it's after reading this. it's quite beautiful and unique and it's brought admiration even from ppl who study that kind of thing professionally about real cultures. i'm not given to flattery but idk just check it out.

so anyway, the ainur, spirits born from the One creator's mind directly, sang under (or despite) His direction and the melody (both harmony and discord) that resulted, is the history of the world.

by the world we have two concepts here, the entire universe (eä) and the planet (arda) 'earth', of which middle-earth is a later-stage continent. the music itself was a creative process that the ainur partook in before knowing the full implication of their singing.

God showed the ainur the vision of what their music had created and when they saw the world they wanted to live it, to dwell on it and experience it.

God granted this but said they had to remain in it until the full music, the full story had played out.

this includes everything that happens in the Silmarillion, the LOTR movies and sequels/prequels, the TROP series, games, etc, and in some stages of Tolkien's opus, our own world (WWI, WWII, etc).

the Discord refers to the rebellious effect of Melkor on the music as much as his part of the music - the dissonance born from his part's coexistence with the rest of the melody that is in harmony, and takes a 'life of its own'.

this is not unimportant, but i'm not going to discuss it at any point. i will point out here that it has been argued -controversially- by some people to be relevant in compatibilizing or explaining otherwise difficult-to-reconcile lore points that deal with "non-Melkorian evil". this is about things like Ungoliant or the nameless things 'whose mention darken the light of day', whose in-world origins are unclear.

on a broader note, this represents two very different intuitions about evil and divinity (Tolkienian v Lovecraftian, we could say). these are difficult to compatibilize and more than Tolkien's psyche, represent ancient tensions within monotheistic religions themselves, i think. so within Tolkien's world, which has an Abrahamic/monotheistic god, you still find traces of Lovecraftian horror.

all that follows is about Tolkienian evil (meta) i.e. Melkorian evil (in-world), that is uncontroversially and explicitly under the governance of the One, although non-Melkorian evil is a fascinating subject.

[jayhashands]

'talk to me' hurt very bad

gotta figure it out somehow

so have this comic

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

how do you keep your faith even while such horrific things are going on in palestine? i've been a christian all my life and i understand that the question of why god allows suffering is one that people have always been asking, that we can never really know the answer to, but it's just so hard for me to see things like this, all of these innocent people being terrorized and murdered in such evil ways, and understand why god can't stop it from happening. in church we pray for both israel and palestine and it feels so pointless, and just makes me frustrated that i can't actually do anything to stop this. especially knowing that even bethlehem, the place of jesus's birth and home to many palestinian christians, is being attacked and churches are being bombed. it seems pretty clear that the people committing these atrocities are never going to open their hearts and stop, and the world leaders who would have the power to make them stop either don't care or directly support them. i do not want to believe that god doesn't exist, or that god would just sit by and watch all of this happen if it were possible to stop it, but it's such a struggle at times like this. i feel like it shouldn't be and like i should've had this figured out by now. it's okay if you don't answer this, i just love your blog and have learned a lot from it over the years, and am incredibly saddened by the state of the world right now.

Hey there, anon. I feel with you and stand with you in your struggle. I also gently suggest you work on letting go of the sense that you "should" have this figured out by now. Firstly because learning to release myself from "shoulds" is something my therapist taught me and it's been super helpful for showing myself love; secondly because I believe it is deeply, deeply faithful to ask these questions, to demand to know where God is in the face of evil — not just once, but continuously across our lives.

If at any point we think we have it "all figured out," if we think we've reached a fully satisfying solution to the problem of how a good God could "let" evil things happen, we're more likely to be numbed by fatalism or become complacent in the face of injustice. As Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (may his memory be a blessing) put it when asked why God lets bad things happen to good people,

“God does not want us to understand, because if we ever understood, we would be forced to accept that bad things happen to good people, and God does not want us to accept those bad things. He wants us not to understand, so that we will fight against the bad and the injustices of this world, and that is why there is no answer to that question.”

Ask the questions. Bring all that you feel — your grief, your confusion, your frustration, your doubt, your fear — to God. Study and pray and converse with others.

And while you're doing all that, and accepting that it'll be a lifelong exploration, act.

Let your love, your words, your actions be the divine response to injustice — because for whatever mysterious reason, God chooses to act through us, through all who follow Their call to "do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly" (Micah 6:8).

___

So yeah, I can't tell you why God doesn't just jump in and stop the evil, why God seems to limit Their own power to intervene (or even to lack that power to begin with), why God respects our free will even when we misuse it to such great harm (though you can see the bottom of this post for places to explore all those questions).

But I can tell you where I believe God is in the midst of all the questions, all the loss, all the suffering — and that's not on some lofty throne indifferently observing our pain; God is right there in the midst of that pain.

Where is God in the face of hate, violence, death? God is co-suffering with us, shouldering the burden with us.

In Exodus 3:7, God says They don't only see the enslaved Hebrews' misery, don't only hear their cries, but that They know the people's suffering — an intimate knowing, as of one who experiences it themself.

In Matthew 25, Jesus tells us that when humanity fails to welcome the stranger, visit the prisoner, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the oppressed, we fail to do those things for him — for he identifies so intimately with all whom the world calls "least" that he is one with each and every one of them.

So I don't know why God doesn't just fix everything, dammit! — it's the first question I'll be asking Xir when I die, because wtf!!

But I do believe, and I do draw some comfort knowing, that God does not leave us to suffer alone. God is one with the oppressed; God shows ultimate solidarity to the oppressed; and God acts with each of us who act for and with and as the oppressed.

And the good news in the midst in this horror is that there are things that all of us can be doing to act in solidarity with the oppressed!

Our efforts truly are making a difference. Politicians and whole governments across the globe have been startled by the resistance to pro-Israeli propaganda and solidarity with Palestine. The change is slow, but our protests are making an impact. Palestinians have been asking that we keep protesting, boycotting, educating, spreading the word. Because it is helping, slowly but surely.

As long as Palestinians refuse to give in to despair, we too must continue to fight. Palestine will be free. We will not stand silent as genocide occurs.

Boycott as many of the companies named by BDS as you can. Notice that they're focusing on a narrower, more targeted group of companies than some of the enormous lists people keep sharing — that's to help us avoid becoming overwhelmed! So boycott what you can from their list; these are the companies directly contributing to Israel's violence. And spread their list to anyone you can.

If you live in a country with a government that has yet to join the call for a ceasefire — and especially if you, like me here in the US, live in a country that is actively funding/otherwise supporting Israel's violence — call or email your representatives to demand a ceasefire.

Resistbot can help make that easy, in the US at least.

Educate yourself about the history of Palestine and Israel. It's important so that you can recognize lies and propaganda, and also so you can speak knowledgeably about the issue with others. It's also important because understanding and simply bearing witness are two big things Palestinians ask of us. You don't need to know everything, but know enough to bear witness, to remember the loss, and to debunk bullshit when you see it.

Here are some places you can get educated — link to free ebooks; article on current events; article with current perspectives from Gaza; and I've been reblogging news & resources as I see them over on @a-queer-seminarian

Post about what Gaza is going through on social media!! Don't let the fight die down! Talk about it with friends or others you think might be swayed to join the fight if they had the information that most media stations are failing to report on.

Stand up against Islamophobia in all forms.

Stand up against antisemitism in all forms. As Christians, this includes recognizing and uprooting supersessionism in our biblical interpretation, our liturgy, our hymns, etc. It also means learning about Christian Zionism.

One of Israel's primary arguments for the "necessity" of its oppression of Palestine is that Israel is necessary because nowhere else on earth is safe for Jews. They're right that nowhere else is safe for Jews; but they're wrong that Israel is safe for Jews — an settler-colonialist state, a war zone, a state that requires every civilian to serve some time in the military, is not safe for Jews either. But as long as they can point to the antisemitism rampant across the globe, they can use that as an argument. So to counter Israel, and much more importantly to stand in solidarity with Jewish people across the world, don't let antisemitism go unchecked.

Join in protests in your area. Follow Jewish Voices for Peace or Jews Against White Supremacy for info on such events.

Link to places to offer fin.ancial support

Want more ways to act? Check out https://www.palestineaction.org/

___

There is no easy answer to the question of suffering — but even so, it can be helpful to explore it deeper, to examine what conclusions others have drawn over the eras. If you want some resources for your wrestling, here are some:

This post goes into the basics of theodicy, the "the intellectual effort to jerry-rig three mutually exclusive terms into harmony: divine power, goodness, and the experiences of evil"

Then there's my #theodicy tag where I put all posts / links about this issue

I also have a long-ass YouTube video diving deep into "the problem of suffering"!

___

I hope this response brings you comfort and courage, friend. Don't be afraid of questions, of grief, of concern — let them galvanize you for the struggle. Solidarity forever <3

[jcalexandrewrites]

The "problem" of evil isn't a real problem! 🤓

Read my fantasy novel, The Light Prince: Grail, available on Amazon in paperback and e-book.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus#Epicurean_paradox

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy#Reasons_for_theodicy

Theodicies are developed to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil, thus resolving the issue of the problem of evil.

In science, when an idea is falsified, it's either thrown out, or withdrawn and revised. In theology, you invent an entire bogus domain to pretend it's still true. Theodicy is that domain. The entire reason it exists at all is because the Problem of Evil shows the god claim doesn't work, but they won't admit it.

Isaiah 45:7

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

[mark-gently]

It would suck to be God's lawyer. No way He's beating the allegations.

[randomnumbers751650]

So, I finished watching Ideon a few days ago and one thing that I thought to be really unique is how Ideon is a theodicy or has elements of a theodicy. Just to let you know, a theodicy is a question on the problem of evil: if God can and wants to prevent evil, and if God is good, then why does evil exist? It should be noted that a theodicy doesn’t necessarily require that God exists or not (I know actual economists and political scientists who unironically call their disciplines theodicies), because questions on the origin of evil are things that are with humanity since immemorial times. Also spoilers for a 40 year old show.

In Ideon, as they learn more and more about the power of the Ide, the Giant reveals itself more and more of a god. In fact, it is called a god in mid-season episodes, but they stop that after a while, probably the writers thinking it might be too much on the nose. But still, the characters are constantly debating why Ide allows that, if Ide is testing them, if Ide is good or evil, since it is orchestrating the meteor falls. A curious thing is that we have Ide’s perspective just once, with Bes’s dream – it wants to survive – and the rest of the discussions is what humans believe to Ide’s will to be, like as if they were some sort of amateur theologians.

In the end, they conclude Ide is trying to kill them because it deemed them unworthy of salvation due to their inability of stopping the cycle of war, but, again, this is their interpretation. And, in the end, Ideon is finally destroyed…but it was already established it had infinite energy, so it is kinda certain that it just allowed itself to be defeated.

Ideon is a story of how war is hell, using a super robot in a real robot story. It portrays conflict escalation, hypocrisy of ideals of honor in an environment that gives power to petty people, capable of selling their comrades for a promotion, or committing war crimes without any tactical advantage – it’s kinda obvious the Buff Clan is based on Imperial Japan, while humans seem to be inspired from Star Trek’s idea of federation – and, above all, the process of dehumanization: it starts with a sense of technological pride, impulse by miscommunication, which constantly evolves into incapacity of recognizing the other as anything but insects, and overall mutual hatred. It ended with parents disowning their child, a father trying to kill his daughter for a frivolous reason such as “blood purity” and what essentially was an attempt to make a human sacrifice to Ide (with Sheryl). No wonder, Ide decides that enough is enough, its patience wouldn’t last forever. The series goes out of its way to show that humans and buffs brought that to themselves.

Personally, I don’t think Ide is evil. I feel it genuinely wanted for humans and buffs to live in peace. The way it cares for children isn’t just because it’s an amalgamation of children from the previous civilizations, but because it genuinely likes them and see them as symbols of hope (or else it wouldn’t protect and support the adults as well) or innocence (when it protected the giant worm children). I could tell when Sheryl attempted to sacrifice Lou to make Ide work, it was beyond pissed off, to the point of destroying their homeworlds and colonies. This is why I don’t buy Ide was setting up a trap to kill both species, it could’ve done any time. It still preserved the ones in space, using the last of hope that they could solve their differences, but its hope drained with every advance, so if it wanted to destroy them, it wanted to make clear that if it was destroying them, it wanted to make them understand why before doing it.

In spite of that, Ide still loved life, including the lives of humans and buffs until the end. When all of them die in the final moments of the movie, they all reunite and, upon seeing the greatness of the universe, they can see how petty and a waste of time their squabbles and wars were. So, Ide had Messiah to guide them to a new planet, to restart the cycle again, hoping this time they would learn the lesson. In spite of Tomino showing a bleak pessimism throughout the series, I feel the end is optimistic.

[apenitentialprayer]

The Suffering God

In all religions, a question mark has been set against the omnipotent and serene gods by the sufferings of men. But only in Christ does the concept of a suffering God appear. […] Only in Christ does it become clear that we can put God to death because he has put himself in our hands. Only since Christ has God become dependent on us. Christ did not identify himself with a calm spectator of all our troubles. Christ, by his teaching, life, and death, made plain the helplessness of God in the world; the suffering of unrequited and unsuccessful love. [...] That God in the world has been, and still is, mocked and tortured, burnt and gassed: that is the rock of the Christian faith which rests all its hope on God attaining his identity. This pain is inextinguishable; this hope can never be taken away. What Christians share in common is 'their participation in the sufferings of God in Christ. That is their faith.' In this faith they know that God is helpless and needs help. […] He put himself at risk, made himself dependent on us, identified himself with the non-identical. From now on, it is high time for us to do something for him.

- Dorothee Soelle (Christ the Representative: An Essay in Theology After the 'Death of God,' pages 151, 151-152). Bolded emphases added.

Man of Sorrows, by Theophilia

[dilutedh2so4]

I saw here someone call the Book of Job a theodicy and I sat there for a good few minutes thinking it was a pun on theology and The Odyssey (how I kept pronouncing theodicy) until I looked it up and it turns out it’s actually a real thing in theology

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of the Problem of Evil

The philosophy of the problem of evil grapples with the existence of evil and suffering in a world that is often characterized as being created or overseen by a benevolent and omnipotent deity. It raises fundamental questions about the nature of God, the origin and nature of evil, and the compatibility of divine attributes with the reality of suffering.

Key aspects of the philosophy of the problem of evil include:

Existence of Evil: Philosophers examine the existence of evil and suffering in the world, including natural disasters, human cruelty, and personal suffering. They analyze the various forms of evil and the impact they have on individuals and societies.

Theological Implications: The problem of evil raises theological challenges to traditional conceptions of God as omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good). Philosophers explore the tension between the existence of evil and the attributes commonly ascribed to God in religious traditions.

Logical Problem: Some formulations of the problem of evil present a logical challenge to the existence of God. Philosophers argue that the coexistence of evil and an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God is logically incompatible. They seek to demonstrate that the existence of evil renders the existence of such a God logically impossible.

Evidential Problem: The evidential problem of evil acknowledges that while the logical problem may not conclusively disprove the existence of God, the prevalence and intensity of evil raise serious doubts about the likelihood of God's existence. Philosophers examine the evidential force of evil in undermining belief in a benevolent deity.

Responses and Theodicies: Philosophers and theologians have proposed various responses and theodicies (justifications for the existence of evil) to reconcile the problem of evil with the existence of God. These include free will defenses, soul-making theodicies, and appeals to divine mystery or higher purposes.

Empirical and Experiential Dimensions: The problem of evil is not merely an abstract philosophical puzzle but also an existential and emotional challenge for individuals grappling with personal suffering and tragedy. Philosophers consider the empirical realities and subjective experiences of evil and suffering in human life.

Implications for Religious Belief: The problem of evil has profound implications for religious belief and existential questions about the nature of reality, morality, and the human condition. Philosophers explore how different responses to the problem of evil shape religious faith, moral outlooks, and existential attitudes.

Overall, the philosophy of the problem of evil engages with deep theological, moral, and existential questions about the nature of the universe and humanity's place within it, challenging us to confront the reality of evil while seeking meaningful responses to its existence.

[queenlucythevaliant]

Just to clarify my thoughts (since I've had a number of people ask me about it) re: Job and cursing God. There's a big difference between cursing God as used in Scripture and how we generally would think of cursing at God today.

Cursing someone, in the Bible, has a lot of depth to it. It's not just saying "screw you " in anger, it's got a sense of forsakenness to it. It's the opposite of a blessing, a removal of blessing. If the blessing is presence, your face shining on the person you're blessing, then a curse is absence. In some translations, Job's wife tells him to "renounce God and die," which I honestly think makes a lot more sense to modern ears.

Job says a lot of unpleasant things to and about God in his anger and grief. So do the Psalmists. A number of the Prophets. So can we. God can take it if we come to him with honest expressions of our emotion, including those not-so-nice ones directed at him. I don't think there's anything wrong with getting mad at God and saying, "How dare you, you bastard" when you suffer unjustly. You can say much worse, I think, without sinning, though I don't feel particularly inclined to give examples. But as long as it's an honest expression of your heart, I think you're doing exactly what prayer is for. You're presenting him your heart with an open hand. He can use that. Opposite of love is not hate but indifference, etc.

Job doesn't renounce God. Neither should we. But I think when you're truly suffering, you're gonna have those feelings toward God either way. He'd rather you address them with him directly than try to avoid them. Cursing at God in the modern sense is actually a great way to keep the relationship strong and not end up cursing/renouncing him in the Biblical sense.

[jeannereames]

WHY YOUR MORALITY IS MY PROBLEM: modern holdovers from ancient theology

James Dobson, founder of the ultra-conservative Focus on the Family organization, reputedly said of the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting, “I think we have turned our back on the Scripture and on God Almighty and I think He has allowed judgment to fall upon us.”

As heartless as that sentiment sounds today when addressing the murder of 20 first-graders (and 6 adults) at an elementary school, it reflects a once-common theology that emerged about four thousand years ago in the ancient near east (ANE*), then bled into the Mediterranean basin and developed an astonishingly long half-life. It’s why some Christians (et al.) are so, so concerned with what their neighbors are doing behind closed doors. Or on their front lawns with all those Pride flags.

In some ways, ANE and Mediterranean religion had a lot in common, being traditional and focused largely on sacrifice/action (orthopraxic). Over time, some orthodoxic religions also arose in that area. So, first, let’s do some quick defining.

Orthopraxic religions focus on what one DOES, not what one believes. Performing the sacrifice correctly, honoring the gods/ancestors appropriately…that’s how one shows piety. Infringing against purity laws or other affronts to the gods (impious actions) can result in expulsion from the community. Fights over correct practice can lead to schism in a community.

Orthodoxic religions focus on what one BELIEVES. Thus, they need some form of authoritative text to determine what IS right belief, resulting in the emergence of a canon (e.g., Zoroastrian Avesta, Jewish Tanakh, Christian New Testament, or Muslim Qur’an). In Orthodoxic religions, wrong beliefs (heresy) can result in expulsion from the community. Fights over correct belief can lead to schism in a community.

(There’s yet a third focus, orthopathic, but that largely doesn’t apply here. “Orthopraxic” can also apply to ethics-based religions, but here, it applies to ritual/cultic behavior.)

Most religions have elements of all three, but it matters where the weight falls. Yes, religions can emphasize two sides of the triangle more heavily, less on the third, but even then, one point will be the chief measurement of devoutness among followers. This also helps us understand why two religions might not understand each other very well sometimes. They’re trying to impose one set of “What religion is for” ideas on another, with entirely different assumptions.

The religions of the ANE and Mediterranean had much in common in terms of the purpose of religion: to maintain the health of a community. This depended on the piety of that communities’ members. Their gods weren’t moral in the modern sense, but could be jealous, fickle, and petty.

Why were they gods then?

Because they were immortal and more powerful.

Yet an important difference between (many) ANE and Mediterranean religions were the concepts of sin and “mesharum” (divine justice/equilibrium). If the latter existed (sorta) in Mediterranean society, “sin” really didn’t. Impiety differs as it can include ritual matters too. So, if murder (especially kin murder) created uncleanness anywhere and is a moral/civil matter, menstruation and sex also created uncleanness, but were not moral/civil matters defined as “bad.” So “unclean” ≠ “sin.”

To be unclean is a matter of cultic purity, different from moral purity. Yes, ANE religions also had ritual uncleanness, to be sure. And yes, some things that make one unclean also have intimations of “badness” without being so extreme as murdering someone. Yet I want to underscore the difference because it’s very real and too often ignored/misunderstood/unfairly conflated.

Many Mediterranean religions did not have “sin,” just unclean and impious. MORAL/ETHICAL matters were dictated by civil law and later, philosophic discussion. Not religion. Yet in the ANE, moral infractions were affronts to mesharum (divine order) and were therefore a religious matter. This oversimplifies, but smash-and-grab works for now. We find actions (like iconoclasm) in the ANE that didn’t often apply in the Mediterranean. (Iconoclasm is the deliberate theft, or in extreme cases, destruction of religious icons or structures.)

Yet what both groups shared was a sense that the gods had, well, “bad aim.” If people in a community were impious and/or sinful, that might draw the ire of the gods. Plagues were often seen as divine retribution for the impiety and/or sin of one or more members of that community, but not necessarily all of them. This led to the exile of impious individuals, as well as the ANE “scapegoat” ritual, et al. (If you’re familiar with the plot of the Iliad, Apollo punished the entire Greek army for the impious actions of Agamemnon.)

I could DIE from your impiety/sin committed in my town/community.

That makes your morality my business.

In addition, especially in the ANE, war on earth was believed to reflect war in heaven. Gods had cities and peoples, not the other way around. They chose you, you didn’t god-shop—hence Israel as a “chosen people.” Well, yeah, pretty much every ethnic group was chosen by some god(s). But as a result, if your side lost in a war, then—theoretically—your gods were weaker. Maybe you should go over and start worshiping their gods. Yet that didn’t sit well with most groups, so by the Middle/Late Bronze Age, we see an emerging idea that my god isn’t “weaker” than yours, rather my general “set forth without the gods’ consent,” or my god permitted the other god(s) to win for whatever reason…usually due to sin or a lack of piety among his (or her) people. Of course we find this in the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible, but it’s in a lot of other ANE literature too. Nabû or Marduk didn’t lose, they “went to live with” Ashur for however many years—although the winning side will portray the victory as Nabû and Marduk traveling to Nineveh to bow before (e.g., submit to) Assur.

Again, this is simplified, but we don’t see this sort of language used in Greece where Hera would bow to Athena because the city-state of Athens defeated Argos, even if, as promachos (foremost in battle), Athena might be expected to win in any conflict between the two (as in Euripides’ Children of Herakles). Hera is still queen of the gods, and—even more—these are shared deities. We also don’t see it because notions of “sin” don’t apply and only a handful of wars were ever called “sacred”—all of them concerning Delphi and cultic purity. At least one of those is mythical, the second probably didn’t happen, and the third (which certainly did happen) was labeled “sacred” only by one side. Greek gods just weren’t seen to uphold justice in the same way. Roman gods were more concerned with such things, but still not as we find in the ANE.

Ergo, the ANE faced the problem of theodicy: if god/the gods are good/just, why does tragedy happen?

Early explanations for tragedy were simple: those who suffer must have earned their suffering, sometimes referred to as Deuteronomic Theology: “good things happen to good people”/“bad things happen to bad people” (and maybe their neighbors too, by chance).

Pushback against this notion emerged around the same time a more nuanced view of loss in war emerged. People began to ask the corollary: “Why do bad things happen to good people?”

The (c. 1700 BCE) Mesopotamian Ludlul bēl nēmeqi (The Poem of the Righteous Sufferer) attempted an answer. About a thousand years later (600s-500s BCE), the Jewish Book of Job took it on as well. In both, the protagonist asks, “Why does Marduk/Yahweh punish me when I’ve been a faithful servant?” Both protagonists were previously wealthy/powerful, which was seen as divine approval. Losing that wealth/health suggested they had offended their god (and are being punished). Yet each one claims he did not sin—so why?

The answer in both works is similar: there’s not really an answer. Marduk restores Šubši-mašrâ-Šakkan, who ends the poem with a prayer of thanksgiving. Job has a chat with Yahweh, who essentially tells him, “You’re a measly mortal, don’t question me.”

The KEY element in both, however, isn’t the answer, but the assertion that a good person can suffer. They didn’t earn it; it just happened. They remained good and, eventually, their god restored them to their prior station, and then some.

Ergo, if you’re suffering, just be patient. Don’t curse God and die. (As Job is advised to do.)

Today, we may find such an answer wanting but need to recognize it for an advancement on the theology of tragedy.

 Some, however, get stuck in these time-locked answers because they can’t allow their religion to grow. Or rather, they can’t acknowledge that their religion/theology evolves over time, because if it evolves, it wasn’t perfect from the beginning. And that challenges their understanding of their god.

Yet the real fly in the ointment is the notion of a perfect and infallible canon.

This brings me back around to what a canon is. It just means “an authoritative text,” but how that text is understood has nuances. INSPIRED ≠ INFALLIBLE. Most all followers of a canonical text believe it’s inspired by God, but not all (or even most) believe it’s infallible. (Islam is its own category here, note.) That creates some problematic GRAYS.

If it’s only inspired, written by humans with human foibles and history-locked understandings, interpreting it becomes complicated and can lead to disagreements. Taking a literalist view sweeps away the messiness. “God said it; I believe it; that settles it!” Black-and-white.

Those who believe in Biblical literalism/inerrancy (which includes a good chunk of conservative Christian Evangelicals and all Fundamentalists**) will argue ALL the Bible is true. If it’s written by God, it must be perfect from the get-go. Thus, a clash is created between simpler versus more nuanced views: Deuteronomy vs. Job. If an earlier view must be as true as any later one, that reduces everything to the most elementary version. It can’t evolve/grow up, yielding what feels to most like a very archaic (and often harsh) worldview.

In any case, both the traditional orthopraxic and orthodoxic religions of the ANE/Med Basin believed God/gods punished people who offended them. AND these punishments might “spill over” onto family and neighbors.

Ancient divine collateral damage.

Ironically, this is WHY early Christians were prosecuted by the pagan (e.g., traditional) Roman and Greek religious establishments. Christian failure to participate in common civic religious cult could earn divine ire. For their first two/two-and-a-half centuries, Christianity was labeled a religio illicta (illegal religion)—in part for “failure to play well with others.” E.g., make sacrifices to the appropriate Greco-Roman deities. Thus, when disaster struck, a scapegoat was sought. Those antisocial Christians are to blame! They don’t sacrifice to the gods and so, offended XXX god, who is now punishing ALL of us with YYY.

Classic ancient religious thinking, but it’s one reason I find current conservative Christian opposition to Teh Gays, trans folks, etc., enormously ironic. The persecuted have become the persecuting.

I want to emphasize that large sub-groups of Jews, Christians, and Muslims have evolved past such theologies. Yet others have not and stubbornly cling to ancient mindsets. That’s why they argue the mere presence of LGBTQI+ people will bring down the wrath of God on ALL.

Talk of “grooming” and “protecting children” is just an attempt to make palatable a belief they know won’t fly with most people, who they consider deluded by The World (e.g., the devil). Trickery is therefore required. As they’re deeply afraid themselves, they understand fear and use it to motivate others. Many are perfectly happy to make their beds with “unbelievers” long enough to get their agendas passed. God will forgive them.

This, too, is rooted in ancient ideas (discussed above) whereby a people’s own god might employ the enemy to punish them (or others). Thus, a sinful person can be utilized on the way to righteous ends because the victory of God wipes away all else. Using the enemy to effect God’s will just proves that God is in final charge of everything after all. It’s the ultimate PWN.

I hope this helps to explain where these ideas come from, how they originally emerged, and why a subgroup of people still cling to them.

————-

* While Egypt influenced the ANE, as well as Greece and Rome, and is often shoehorned into the ANE, I consider Egypt as NE Africa. It deserves to be treated on its own, or in relation to neighbors such as Kush.

** Fundamentalists and Evangelicals tend to be equated but are not the same. Also, not all Evangelicals are conservatives (although all Fundamentalists are, by definition). Enormous variation exists between Christian denominations, which range from ultra-conservative to (surprise!) ultra-liberal. There is as much of a hard Christian Left as there is a hard Christian Right. We just tend to hear far less about them.

[greater-than-the-sword]

Question coming from your 'Athiests are bad at criticizing Christianity' post:

What is the Calvinist theodicy for the Problem of Evil, since you can't use the classic "Love must be given freely to be truly Love" argument?

A couple things

This does vary depending on which Calvinist you ask.

1. It's not that Calvinists believe that the love given to God isn't given freely, it's just that we believe the human will is not inherently autonomous. So, we were designed to love God and the fact that we don't is due to a brokenness in our nature, so in a Lewisian sense (though he wasn't a calvinist lol but I wish he was) we're more genuinely ourselves post-intervention/healing than before. God is fully in charge of whether this happens or not.

2. To your point. My preferred explanation is that it causes God to be glorified for evil to be given a chance to "make its case" as it were to try and prove that it is better than God, and events on Earth will prove God's case, and then he will return to judge evil. God is the only thing that is self-existent, and the only thing that could ever oppose God is a creation of his with a fall or corruption from his perfection&purpose for it. God will prove his superiority over the only thing that could ever oppose him and then the rest of eternity will happen.

To put it another way, God allows evil to exist so that he can have glorious victory over his enemies & put all things under his feet.

"The glory of God" is, according to the catechism, the ultimate reason for the creation of the universe itself and the existence of everything that exists, so I don't think this is too far fetched. (And not accusing anyone here but I think that if this doesn't seem worth it to you, you might have to look into your view of who you think God is.)

Ultimately though God's purpose is at least somewhat a mystery to us, but I believe some aspects of this mystery (like why suffering was allowed in the lives of individuals etc.) will one day be revealed.

[i-dont-talk-for-days-on-end]

... great, now I can't stop imagining how Holmes reading out Browner's statement ... Possibly very dramatically in the beginning to amuse Watson, but then becoming more serious with the story's progression until in the end he's like ... well ... what a fucked-up situation. *casually raising the problem of theodicy*