God can write straight with crooked lines.

[malkie]

Does my other comment at viewtopic.php?p=2918433#p2918433 make more sense now?

[Limnor]

Does my other comment at viewtopic.php?p=2918433#p2918433 make more sense now?

Yes. I confess I didn’t worry much about rules when it became clear the lines could change to fit the result.

[Gadianton]

I sort of did a data dump with what I am familiar with in TOlkien just to get it down for the time being.

I think bringing in Tolkien is a great idea. For those of us who aren't familiar, feel free to fill in the basic storyline so we can follow along as you make your points.

Shall I call them sideroads into it that gives me pause?

Bear in mind that the more sideroads we have, the more ambiguity about which way to go. Now that Holland is gone, it may require a seance to get directions.

[Philo Sofee]

Over the years participating on this board, I have seen so many examples of this truth:

God can write straight with crooked lines.

I think it would be interesting to hear where others might come from as they consider this truth. First of all, are we willing to accept...if there is a creator God...that He would "write straight with crooked lines?" It would be interesting, just like in hopscotch, whether we can actually get to square one, or the first jump.

Obviously, I wouldn't ask the question if I didn't have an opinion. The problem is, if I present mine...as usual...folks will 'hop' all over the place simply trying to either make me look stupid or nonsensical, etc.

So, what are some of your thoughts? Hypothetically speaking, if there is a creator God, can/does He write straight with crooked lines?

By the way, this question can be used in conjunction with so many questions and issues that are brought up ad nauseum in regard to Mormonism, the apostasy, blacks and priesthood, current cultural battles, etc.

I'm going to stand back and watch, learn, and listen.

Regards,
MG

Back to my original post and my past writings having to do with the Sorites Paradox.

Questions that could be considered:

How much "crookedness' can exist before the line is no longer straight?

How much imperfection can exist in a prophet, institution, doctrine, or history before it stops being "divinely inspired"?

The Sorites Paradox (problem) might dictate that:

One flaw doesn't negate divine guidance. Another flaw doesn't negate it. Another still doesn't. But at SOME POINT, critics argue that accumulation DOES negate it.

And of utmost importance, all the while, as we are traveling crooked lines, God...who is in the midst of all things...is able to make (our) paths (and humanities') straight.

It comes back to the 5d thing gadianton was talking about and I referred to earlier. Things get rather complex REAL FAST when trying to determine how much crookedness is an acceptable amount (Sorites) before we call out the Creator. Again, on the hypothetical assumption being made here, that a creator God exists.

Who has the qualifications to specify or 'call out' the exact threshold in all of this? That is the problem that lies at the root of the paradox.

Regards,
MG

You guys are moving so fast and far beyond where I can contribute. I'm not complaining about it! I can see how I am going to spend my first day of the year tomorrow - responding to ideas presented here! Lol! OK, let me see if I am grasping what it is you are getting to MG....

With the Sorites paradox you appear to be applying this logic to divine guidance instead of sand. The actual issue therefore is - "How much imperfection can exist before we are justified in saying 'this is no longer divinely guided'? And you bring in prophets, institutions, doctrines, history, etc. I presume you are not just saying with this that imperfection is fine. No, there is more to it than that. In reality, there is no clear, objective threshold where divine inspiration suddenly switches off. So, as analogies with the sand grains, One flaw doesn’t do it. Ten flaws don’t do it. A hundred flaws… maybe? But, and here is the crux, who decides where that line is? So, if I am understanding your idea of God writing with crooked lines, you're not saying everything is equally good or that evil doesn't matter. You may not even be saying that criticism is invalid. The issue with you appears to me to be that God’s activity might operate at a scale or dimension (your “5D” metaphor) where local crookedness does not cancel out global direction. We humans see zig zags, but God sees trajectory. You hug onto complexity for this reason I think. But you also appear to me to be shifting the burden of proof here. You are asking who is qualified to say exactly when divine guidance is no longer present? The obvious answer also seems to me to be with us, its going to end up being arbitrary. Apparently on your take of things, the accumulation of flaws creates a philosophical problem, not an easy refutation. This is why you like calling it a paradox.

OK, so, I want to bring in Tolkien, not because I think he has the last word, nor because I think I am interpreting him accurately either. There is a lot of depth to the man's philosophy and theology and he spent decades developing it in spectacular story form. But humor me here for a minute. From my reading of Tolkien I believe he would agree with you that when someone fails in whatever they are doing, that does not automatically mean meaning itself is lost or fails. So to use your image, crooked paths do not cancel direction. And the reason appears to be more than obvious actually, because we simply don't see the whole story, nor can we. The finite cannot fathom let alone even possibly grasp the infinite.

So, how Tolkien handles this is with the proposition that Middle-earth is deeply broken. Astoundingly, even the Valar make mistakes! - ? (Could Mormonism admit, let alone show Elohim made mistakes?). So, I mean, history is scarred, it is certainly not optimized. But with these short comings still, meaning is just not lost in Tolkien. That is key. I think this aligns mostly with what you are leading to. But...... Come on, there is always a but - lol.....

You focus more on the when we know to reject divine guidance, while Tolkien, me thinks, focuses on moral agency of individuals (and groups! at times... what responsibility remains regardless). Tolkien doesn't say “You can’t tell when guidance fails, so trust it anyway.” What he does say is “Even if guidance exists, you are never relieved of moral responsibility.” What this means, and I suspect the beginning of the difference in your preferred system of theology - e.g., Mormonism, is Tolkien never lets authority override conscience, nor does he ever excuse evil because it fits a larger arc (it's part of God's Plan). Tolkien as well never tells victims “this was acceptable crookedness.” Now this means however, that, unlike yourself, Tolkien avoids the danger of the Sorites move being used to excuse harm. If no one can ever say “this is too crooked,” then who can protest something on moral grounds? I think Tolkien's strategy was to separate two questions. Is meaning still possible? He says yes. Is this action justified? Here he says no. And yet......and YET, meaning still survives without permission.

Would I be fair in saying that you are proposing because there is no non-arbitrary threshold where imperfection cancels divine guidance, humans are not clearly qualified to declare when God has ceased to be at work, even when history looks messy and broken? I see that as a thoughtful position, it's not a trap question I'm asking you.

As an instructional contrast, so far as I can understand from my reading, Tolkien accepts that meaning may persist through broken history, but he refuses to let that persistence excuse, justify, or silence moral resistance to what is broken (hence the moral indignation against critics who find fault with leaders, or something immoral in the system, or financially immoral, etc. being taught as being wickedness because leaders say it is, is a canard and false). And that's a difference. He agrees with the complexity and the humility, to be sure, but he also insists that moral responsibility never dissolves into paradox. Tolkien's safeguard is important. No amount of “crooked lines” ever authorizes doing harm or ignoring it (as Mormonism does with so many issues it faces in our day). And that’s why Tolkien remains such a powerful moral compass, while Mormonism as a religious system seems to me to be a compromise of morals shifted to obedience as the only law worth following. I was taught for hundreds of lessons (literally) in my youth, as I know you were as well, that obedience is the first law of heaven, when, now that we both have matured a bit, know that is obviously a false doctrine. The Bible never teaches that obedience is the first law of heaven; it teaches that love is, and obedience only matters when it flows from love rather than replacing it.

[Philo Sofee]

Remember, in my original post I'm asking that we deal with a hypothetical creator God who would ultimately like to see the greatest good be the result of His efforts. Nothing else would seem to make sense. At least to me.

So I appreciate it if we can kind of, sort of, travel the course...for now...that there is a loving Creator (even if you have your doubts that this is so).

But I like the direction this thread has been going. Don't let me be a monkey wrench in the discussion. Kind of ignore me!

Regards,
MG

I promise MG, I am not trying to pick on you or single you out. Others have some great stuff I wanna address as well, and will tomorrow. But for now this particularly struck me because I kind of had an argument along these lines a while back with another Tolkien fan actually., And it wasn't an argument, and we aren't arguing either, more a discussion which shows Tolkien has something to say along these lines, just not in a way we could guess before hand. I think this is why Tolkien is just so keen for me at this time. Anyway, enough sass, lets rumble! GRIN!

In the Ainulindalë, Ilúvatar (God) creates the world not by command, but by music, the original shared, unfolding act of creation in Tolkien's creation story The Silmarillion, in which other wills help sing creation into existing. So, this isn't some optimized blueprint which is executed flawlessly giving the only best outcome. It also isn't immune from deviation, which, in fact, does happen. Tolkien's theme is present a living composition, that is shaped by freedom, not priesthood authority. And then we have Melkor. There always has to be some kind of dumb ass involved who really will do things his or her way, period. Melkor sings off key. He deliberately messes things up and sings dischord and causes all kinds of sacred eyebrows to rise and longing looks at this imbecile. Unfortunately this chump is seriously damn deadly powerful. And obnoxious. It's his way or kiss my grits is his view, the only important one. So now Tolkien at this juncture makes several very striking choices here, which is one of the reason he resonates so well with such a variety of hundreds of millions of readers for the last many, several decades and still going exquisitely strong! Iluvatar doesn't stop him. but more, he also doesn't explain the discord. And he doesn't punish Melkor for wrecking the moment either. And he also does not reassert control! So Iluvatar does something much more strange. And this is the unsettling part as well.
He enters new themes in the composition that take up the discord without negating freedom. This is a crucial contrast to many theological systems. In fact, he doesn't even war with Melkor nor kick him or any of his followers out of heaven either. But, and here is strangeness indeed! Iluvatar also does not say the discord is necessary. There is no special moment where he says This will all be worth it either. There is no proclamation that this suffering is justified. There is no lament that Melkor in his evil way has ruined my plan! Iluvatar actually proclaims that you cannot escape meaning, but you do remain responsible for what you choose. Notice what this is not. There is no micromanaging here. There is no punishment. It certainly is not outcome- optimization. What we have here is sovereignty which is not forced. So, O.K., what's the point? Melkor cannot see the whole. He mistakes disruption for dominance. His mental failure is not realizing that the music can grow without becoming coerced.

Now one important point Tolkien also brings to bear on this issue is that Melkor's evil is not what improves the whole. It's also not pointing out that suffering is redeemed as suffering. It is also decidedly not saying that discord is secretly good. There is really something mysterious going on here with this. I mean, besides Tolkien's pure genius. Freedom is so fundamental that even its abuse does not cancel meaning though it may cause irreparable harm. And Tolkien never pretends otherwise.
But I also want to explain why this avoids the “crooked lines” trap.

The Ainulindalë (The Song of Creation) does not say: “God allows evil in order to bring about greater good.” That’s the utilitarian reading and Tolkien refuses it. Instead, it says: “God allows freedom, and freedom can wound reality yet reality is not abandoned.”

That’s a very different claim. The perspective Tolkien develops here is that evil is not instrumental. Suffering is not justified. Victims are not collateral. God is not optimizing pain. We discover that meaning is preserved without explaining suffering. That’s why Melkor is later judged not for causing the discord per se, but for persisting in domination for refusing harmony, and continually refusing humility.

You ask us to assume a loving Creator who desires the greatest good. Tolkien answers: The “greatest good” is not maximal pleasure (read "joy").
It is freedom held open for all to be who and what they are. It is about relationship rather than control, or determining who gets to sing and who doesn't, or who gets to stay, and who is to be banished into outer darkness for disagreement described as wickedness as sons of perdition. It is working with faithfulness rather than correctness, as well as with meaning rather than explanation.

In the Ainulindalë: Creation is not protected from tragedy. God does not intervene (go to war) to “fix” outcomes based on choices not aligned with God's (read elohim), yet God also does not abandon the world. That appears to me to be the middle ground your thread has been circling.

What you’re offering the discussion is not an argument against skepticism.

You’re offering:

a model where God is loving without being coercive, meaningful without being manipulative, sovereign without being a decision-procedure, and crucially, a Creator who does not punish discord immediately because punishment is not how meaning is preserved. That alone distinguishes Tolkien sharply from many real-world systems many here are rightly rejecting, including yours.

Tolkien’s Ainulindalë imagines a loving Creator who does not prevent discord, does not punish it immediately, and does not explain it away, yet does not lose sovereignty. Melkor’s freedom to disrupt is fully honored, but so is the unfolding of meaning beyond any single will. It’s not that evil is necessary for good, but that freedom is so fundamental that even its abuse doesn’t cancel the music though it can wound it deeply.
That's what keeps victims safe. That keeps reason intact. As well as keeping hope breathable.

So, I'm not importing Tolkien to prove God. What I am attempting to show here is what kind of God would be morally coherent if one existed at all. The Ainulindalë clearly is not to be looked at as something to be comforted by, but it is Tolkien's moral architecture for his universe.

And yes it contrasts beautifully with systems that must explain suffering, punish dissent, or claim certainty. Tolkien has none of that baggage.

[Philo Sofee]

I sort of did a data dump with what I am familiar with in TOlkien just to get it down for the time being.

I think bringing in Tolkien is a great idea. For those of us who aren't familiar, feel free to fill in the basic storyline so we can follow along as you make your points.

Shall I call them sideroads into it that gives me pause?

Bear in mind that the more sideroads we have, the more ambiguity about which way to go. Now that Holland is gone, it may require a seance to get directions.

dude yer killin it!

[Philo Sofee]

OK, I got this at lunchtime and have been thinking about it and making some notes all day now. I will post something later tonight. I honestly do believe Tolkien guides us into a fascinating path I have never before thought of. So, later tonight after I get it all down, I shall come back and post. I don't think this is going to go the way you are imagining it will, anymore than how I was hoping it would, but it is terribly instructive and worth pondering for theological angles and purposes. Tolkien was anything but shallow, so it takes time to see it. Be back in a while.

I first read LOTR when I was 12, and the parts that really hit home then was the way I could “feel” the story.

Frodo pierced by the Morgul blade and the long ache that follows him into Rivendell—I felt that. The failed crossing of the mountains where strength faltered and Legolas walked lightly on the snow. The endless stairs in Moria. Boromir’s temptation and his redemption, horn cloven as he stands his ground. The three hunters running without rest after the Orcs. The application of the burning ointment to Pippin’s head wound. Merry and Pippin and the deep draughts that restore them. The slow barooombarum of Entish speech, and the Ents finally breaking Isengard. Sam carrying the Ring when all seems lost. The silence when Theoden is struck down.

When I read it at 12 I felt like I was with them. I’ve read it again a couple of times and the meaning has changed—the sorrow is what strikes me now. And the continued perseverance when all seemed lost.

Thanks Philo for the reminder of the depth the story.

Yeah......when you "feel" it, you know you are tapping into something bigger than yourself. I mean, that is about the only way I can describe it. The astounding thing is Tolkien does not ever preach that dirty "M" word. "Morality." UGH! Religious preacher Sermons and Bishop Sunday School talks on morality ALWAYS FAIL. That's why Tolkien succeeds. Because he never preaches and screeches to you what it is or how to have it, or condemns you for not haivng it. He simply tells the story of his universe that shows it to us, both in characters that have it, and its effects, and those who don't, and those effects. And we feel it, we sense it, and know what it is. I mean, come on, it's hard to get better than that.....

[Philo Sofee]

What rules?

While playing this hopscotch game while commenting on whether God can write straight with crooked lines it might be useful to remember that where the Hoppy Taw is thrown might influence the game.

Also, remember (as I said in the original post) this is hypothetical. We are coming from the position that there is a creator God. If that's not something that your mind can play with, that's OK. Don't play!

Again, I'm a bystander. I want to listen and learn from great minds! (I'm serious about that).

Please stay on topic to the extent that we don't end up playing basketball...or rugby...rather than taking jumps on the hopscotch grid...if it is a grid. !

Linear vs. sort of.

And please don't derail by 'shooting the messenger'. This is supposed to be fun.

Regards,
MG

[my colouring]

It seemed/seems a bit too contrived for my taste.

To me as well. It is why I delight in Tolkien...... you get none of this pre-texting and grooming of our minds in order to grasp "true" theology, from false. We don't have to deal with any of that noisy apparatus.

[MG 2.0]

Philo, your love of Tolkien's writing is evident. Writers such as Dickens, Tolstoy, Solzhenitsyn, Clancy (just kidding, kind of) have offered the world a deeper understanding of what it means to be human and try to connect with or understand the divine.

Your two LONG posts have much that I actually agree with as it 'feels right' to me. When I have more time I will try to make some comments on what you've written as you have spent some time putting your thoughts together. As it is, my mind is starting to shut down for the day.

Happy New Year!

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Remember, in my original post I'm asking that we deal with a hypothetical creator God who would ultimately like to see the greatest good be the result of His efforts. Nothing else would seem to make sense. At least to me.

So I appreciate it if we can kind of, sort of, travel the course...for now...that there is a loving Creator (even if you have your doubts that this is so).

But I like the direction this thread has been going. Don't let me be a monkey wrench in the discussion. Kind of ignore me!

Regards,
MG

I promise MG, I am not trying to pick on you or single you out. Others have some great stuff I wanna address as well, and will tomorrow. But for now this particularly struck me because I kind of had an argument along these lines a while back with another Tolkien fan actually., And it wasn't an argument, and we aren't arguing either, more a discussion which shows Tolkien has something to say along these lines, just not in a way we could guess before hand. I think this is why Tolkien is just so keen for me at this time. Anyway, enough sass, lets rumble! GRIN!

In the Ainulindalë, Ilúvatar (God) creates the world not by command, but by music, the original shared, unfolding act of creation in Tolkien's creation story The Silmarillion, in which other wills help sing creation into existing. So, this isn't some optimized blueprint which is executed flawlessly giving the only best outcome. It also isn't immune from deviation, which, in fact, does happen. Tolkien's theme is present a living composition, that is shaped by freedom, not priesthood authority. And then we have Melkor. There always has to be some kind of dumb ass involved who really will do things his or her way, period. Melkor sings off key. He deliberately messes things up and sings dischord and causes all kinds of sacred eyebrows to rise and longing looks at this imbecile. Unfortunately this chump is seriously damn deadly powerful. And obnoxious. It's his way or kiss my grits is his view, the only important one. So now Tolkien at this juncture makes several very striking choices here, which is one of the reason he resonates so well with such a variety of hundreds of millions of readers for the last many, several decades and still going exquisitely strong! Iluvatar doesn't stop him. but more, he also doesn't explain the discord. And he doesn't punish Melkor for wrecking the moment either. And he also does not reassert control! So Iluvatar does something much more strange. And this is the unsettling part as well.
He enters new themes in the composition that take up the discord without negating freedom. This is a crucial contrast to many theological systems. In fact, he doesn't even war with Melkor nor kick him or any of his followers out of heaven either. But, and here is strangeness indeed! Iluvatar also does not say the discord is necessary. There is no special moment where he says This will all be worth it either. There is no proclamation that this suffering is justified. There is no lament that Melkor in his evil way has ruined my plan! Iluvatar actually proclaims that you cannot escape meaning, but you do remain responsible for what you choose. Notice what this is not. There is no micromanaging here. There is no punishment. It certainly is not outcome- optimization. What we have here is sovereignty which is not forced. So, O.K., what's the point? Melkor cannot see the whole. He mistakes disruption for dominance. His mental failure is not realizing that the music can grow without becoming coerced.

Now one important point Tolkien also brings to bear on this issue is that Melkor's evil is not what improves the whole. It's also not pointing out that suffering is redeemed as suffering. It is also decidedly not saying that discord is secretly good. There is really something mysterious going on here with this. I mean, besides Tolkien's pure genius. Freedom is so fundamental that even its abuse does not cancel meaning though it may cause irreparable harm. And Tolkien never pretends otherwise.
But I also want to explain why this avoids the “crooked lines” trap.

The Ainulindalë (The Song of Creation) does not say: “God allows evil in order to bring about greater good.” That’s the utilitarian reading and Tolkien refuses it. Instead, it says: “God allows freedom, and freedom can wound reality yet reality is not abandoned.”

That’s a very different claim. The perspective Tolkien develops here is that evil is not instrumental. Suffering is not justified. Victims are not collateral. God is not optimizing pain. We discover that meaning is preserved without explaining suffering. That’s why Melkor is later judged not for causing the discord per se, but for persisting in domination for refusing harmony, and continually refusing humility.

You ask us to assume a loving Creator who desires the greatest good. Tolkien answers: The “greatest good” is not maximal pleasure (read "joy").
It is freedom held open for all to be who and what they are. It is about relationship rather than control, or determining who gets to sing and who doesn't, or who gets to stay, and who is to be banished into outer darkness for disagreement described as wickedness as sons of perdition. It is working with faithfulness rather than correctness, as well as with meaning rather than explanation.

In the Ainulindalë: Creation is not protected from tragedy. God does not intervene (go to war) to “fix” outcomes based on choices not aligned with God's (read elohim), yet God also does not abandon the world. That appears to me to be the middle ground your thread has been circling.

What you’re offering the discussion is not an argument against skepticism.

You’re offering:

a model where God is loving without being coercive, meaningful without being manipulative, sovereign without being a decision-procedure, and crucially, a Creator who does not punish discord immediately because punishment is not how meaning is preserved. That alone distinguishes Tolkien sharply from many real-world systems many here are rightly rejecting, including yours.

Tolkien’s Ainulindalë imagines a loving Creator who does not prevent discord, does not punish it immediately, and does not explain it away, yet does not lose sovereignty. Melkor’s freedom to disrupt is fully honored, but so is the unfolding of meaning beyond any single will. It’s not that evil is necessary for good, but that freedom is so fundamental that even its abuse doesn’t cancel the music though it can wound it deeply.
That's what keeps victims safe. That keeps reason intact. As well as keeping hope breathable.

So, I'm not importing Tolkien to prove God. What I am attempting to show here is what kind of God would be morally coherent if one existed at all. The Ainulindalë clearly is not to be looked at as something to be comforted by, but it is Tolkien's moral architecture for his universe.

And yes it contrasts beautifully with systems that must explain suffering, punish dissent, or claim certainty. Tolkien has none of that baggage.

That was amazing to read, thank you, Philo.
this especially:
"What I am attempting to show here is what kind of God would be morally coherent if one existed at all."