God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Marcus]

I’d like to bear my testimony.

I know ambiguity is true. I know it with every fiber of my being. I know that when a metaphor is broad enough, it can comfort everyone by indicating that error and injustice are part of the plan, unless some things really are just human mistakes, in which case I am grateful that we don’t have to clarify which is which.

I’m grateful that when people ask for specificity, we can zoom out, toss the Hoppy Taw, speak hypothetically through games fit for elementary age children, and remind ourselves that life is messy. I know this ambiguity protects us from the burden of saying what we actually mean or what would count against it.

I testify that clarity is overrated, that making scriptural reference from the LDS canon while simultaneously speaking in regard to humanity as a whole, not one particular religious faith tradition, is unlikely to be noticed, and that my testimony is safest when I can sit off to the side and gently nudge the players toward an unnamed solution that can’t be examined too closely.

I say these things humbly, and then I will back out again.

Amen.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I’d like to bear my testimony.

I know ambiguity is true. I know it with every fiber of my being. I know that when a metaphor is broad enough, it can comfort everyone by indicating that error and injustice are part of the plan, unless some things really are just human mistakes, in which case I am grateful that we don’t have to clarify which is which.

I’m grateful that when people ask for specificity, we can zoom out, toss the Hoppy Taw, speak hypothetically through games fit for elementary age children, and remind ourselves that life is messy. I know this ambiguity protects us from the burden of saying what we actually mean or what would count against it.

I testify that clarity is overrated, that making scriptural reference from the LDS canon while simultaneously speaking in regard to humanity as a whole, not one particular religious faith tradition, is unlikely to be noticed, and that my testimony is safest when I can sit off to the side and gently nudge the players toward an unnamed solution that can’t be examined too closely.

I say these things humbly, and then I will back out again.

[Shulem]

Can/could a perfect being produce perfect results using imperfect instruments?

Perfect God was said to cause the name Benjamin to magically appear through the power of the seer stone in which his prophet under the influence of the Holy Spirit read it.

The Mosiah/Benjamin Error, What’s the King’s Name?

So, what is the perfect name? Benjamin or Mosiah?

[Limnor]

You will notice that I am more interested, at least at this point, in the discussion among other board members. This is my intent. I said so at the beginning. Otherwise, it becomes another "all about MG" thread. There are too many of those already.

I'm enjoying the recent posts. Limnor, I think your "testimony' may have a place in this discussion worth considering and thinking about. Res Ipsa, I'd like to sort of keep out of it for now and let others have their say without me throwing a monkey wrench/grenade into the discussion. I've probably come close to doing so already.

Trying to stay away from that for now.

Others might want to comment on the questions you are throwing out there in my name.

Regards,
MG

Thank you, MG. I’d be interested to know which point you see as most relevant, and how you think it moves the discussion forward.

[MG 2.0]

Another thing to add to the mix:

God can use very uneven (crooked lines), sometimes painful or chaotic events—including sins, failures, injustices, and accidents—to advance a coherent, good purpose (straight path/result) that is not obvious from inside the mess.

This might be related to a 'power law distribution'...meaning that outcomes are highly “lumpy”...a few outliers such as a catastrophic setback, periodic 'sin', questions about reality, etc., matter far less than the countless small, everyday steps towards goodness/perfection and increasing in knowledge without becoming complacent or angry.

God can write straight with crooked lines.

I'm enjoying the discussion folks are having with each other and discussing ideas/concepts rather than people, organizations, per se.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

-snip-

…painful or chaotic events—including…accidents—to advance a coherent, good purpose (straight path/result) that is not obvious from inside the mess.

…catastrophic setback, periodic 'sin', questions about reality, etc., matter far less than the countless small, everyday steps towards goodness/perfection and increasing in knowledge without becoming complacent or angry.

Apologies for the snips, but I just want to say I’m glad your wife wasn’t seriously hurt. I’m going to step back from this game for now.

I’m still thinking through this: “When personal, real-world events are introduced into a discussion to explain or justify a position, I’m not always sure how the hearer is meant to evaluate the claim as true, instead of the standard becoming “if you’re compassionate, you must believe me.”

[canpakes]

MG, if considering the question of writing straight with crooked lines, consider the following scenario:

A child is murdered by a gang member. In consolation at the funeral, two different evangelical relatives approach the parents.

One tells the parents that Evil has taken their child.

The other tells the parents that this murder was part of God’s plan.

Which of these two is making the correct interpretation?

[Philo Sofee]

Another thing to add to the mix:

God can use very uneven (crooked lines), sometimes painful or chaotic events—including sins, failures, injustices, and accidents—to advance a coherent, good purpose (straight path/result) that is not obvious from inside the mess.

This might be related to a 'power law distribution'...meaning that outcomes are highly “lumpy”...a few outliers such as a catastrophic setback, periodic 'sin', questions about reality, etc., matter far less than the countless small, everyday steps towards goodness/perfection and increasing in knowledge without becoming complacent or angry.

God can write straight with crooked lines.

I'm enjoying the discussion folks are having with each other and discussing ideas/concepts rather than people, organizations, per se.

Regards,
MG

Actually, this reminds me of some of J.R.R. Tolkien's ideas in his magnificent Legendarium! How interesting bringing it up MG......

[Philo Sofee]

MG, if considering the question of writing straight with crooked lines, consider the following scenario:

A child is murdered by a gang member. In consolation at the funeral, two different evangelical relatives approach the parents.

One tells the parents that Evil has taken their child.

The other tells the parents that this murder was part of God’s plan.

Which of these two is making the correct interpretation?

With just a little thought, it is obvious why the first answer fails on its own. It claims “Evil has taken your child.”

While this may sound compassionate, it actually implies something if taken on its own that I simply don't buy, not even for a moment.

It forces us to come to the end conclusion that evil is an independent power that ultimately wins. That God is reduced to merely being a spectator, that love has no final word.

Taken alone, it leaves the parents with cosmic despair, a grief without hope.

Interestingly to my way of thinking, the second answer fails even more badly than that first short sighted option. It presents us with a supposed fact that “This murder was part of God’s plan.” So here we see a spectacle of a moral atrocity claimed as a potential divine strategy. God actually authors this free act of violence, Himself no less! And, therefore a grieving parent with one of the heaviest of weights on their heart from one of the singular most evil situations that can occur with a parent is expected to accept the unacceptable. I simply don't. This entire set up is a pure canard of baloney. Even if its supposed to mean that God will bring good from this there appears to be a collapsing between permission and intention doesn't there? The spiritually devastating collapse appears to be what is intended. I don't bite.
So what is this trap hiding from us supposedly so cleverly? I think by the pure definition of God being something that is involved in total good that we can say God does not actually will there to be evil. And the flip side is that God is also not defeated by evil either. This doesn't mean evil acts aren't real, or dangerous, and not "part of the plan," because Redemption is what God does after the rapture. Is this what MG is sort of leaning to in his saying God writes straight lines with crooked lines? I have no idea. As a metaphor, if I may, allow me to present the line is crooked leads to the murder is a true evil, it ruptures our lives, and it is a heinous sin. The writing straight lines is perhaps Gods response of resurrection, justice and restoration.
But a much more important point to see is that this trap forces people to choose between a universe where God is good but powerless, or a universe where God is just simply morally monstrous and therefore not to be worshipped. And we are supposed to pick one as if they are the only two available? It's a pretty amateur weak approach to all of this in my opinion. I simply say the choice itself is false, and don't play that game. Surely MG will do the same, and so where does that leave us? It leaves us hoping there is something more honest and sophisticated present to discuss.

[Gadianton]

A child is murdered by a gang member. In consolation at the funeral, two different evangelical relatives approach the parents.

One tells the parents that Evil has taken their child.

The other tells the parents that this murder was part of God’s plan.

Which of these two is making the correct interpretation?

I think these are terrific questions which can move the topy taw to the next square -- that is if the hopscotch grid itself has straight lines, to cue in Limnor: who knows what kind of game we're really playing? Does God need to say? I better jump in though, sorry MG, because if there's one thing I know, it's the mind of the apologist and the apologist is going to say, "both of them are right." Perhaps Plantinga will be cited saying that whatever the state of the world, it's by definition maximally good, and the words "evil is permitted" do not contradict "God is maximally good".

I have to credit MG with his metaphor, it's much better than I originally thought now that I've had a chance to sleep on it. Two main points: the most crucial point is the question doesn't need to restate the problem of evil. The second point is the one I brought up earlier that "crooked lines" is always a post-hoc justification. Nobody ever brings up "crooked lines" until the "straight lines" fail.

Post hoc, you bet the parents will eventually, if not right away, accept that it was part of the plan. Nobody wants to be a victim, nobody wants to lose, nobody wants to feel helpless. No matter how bad it is, if there's a way to make it part of something bigger; something that makes sense, then human psychology will see to it. Do we want to say that Jesus got his ass kicked by Pontius Pilot or do we want to say he died for the sins of the world?

Suppose instead of the crooked line interpretation being after the fact, it's before the fact. Suppose the evangelical relative says that his cousin from Kentucky is a minister and actually has the child bound up and ready for a sacrifice. Suppose the relative shows a picture of their cousin's diploma from a Bible school if they don't believe he's a real minister. Now, are the parents going to say, "well gee, God works in mysterious ways, I guess he better go ahead and do it if that's what the Bible says he must do." Nobody is ever going to accept the crooked lines before the fact.

But what if the parents are conservatives? They just might think it makes total sense and go through with it, however, what if down the road they are arrested, found complicit in the murder, and facing prison? Now the gears turn, perhaps it was a fake diploma or the relative had used photoshop to doctor it up? What if the cousin was never a man of God at all? Now the world is blurry and they don't have answers. Over time, and years in prison, they come to new beliefs about God and about the situation. A book is written in prison about misplaced trust, and they feel that book will reach a lot of people, many of those who read the book will avoid the very type of situation they fell for, and had it not happened to them, how many others would it happen to?