Theodicy: a defence of God’s goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil
We ought to reject all attempts at theodicy. God did not need sin, death, and evil to bring about His plan for creation. Sin, death, and evil did happen, but not at God’s command or decree. And, we take comfort in the fact that God hates sin, death, and evil, and He will redeem His creation from it all.
Excerpt from an article written by David B. Hart titled Tsunami and Theodicy….
“Christians often find it hard to adopt the spiritual idiom of the New Testament—to think in terms, that is, of a cosmic struggle between good and evil, of Christ’s triumph over the principalities of this world, of the overthrow of hell. All Christians know, of course, that it is through God’s self-outpouring upon the cross that we are saved, and that we are made able by grace to participate in Christ’s suffering; but this should not obscure that other truth revealed at Easter: that the incarnate God enters ‘this cosmos’ not simply to disclose its immanent rationality, but to break the boundaries of fallen nature asunder, and to refashion creation after its ancient beauty—wherein neither sin nor death had any place. Christian thought has traditionally, of necessity, defined evil as a privation of the good, possessing no essence or nature of its own, a purely parasitic corruption of reality; hence it can have no positive role to play in God’s determination of Himself or purpose for His creatures (even if by economy God can bring good from evil); it can in no way supply any imagined deficiency in God’s or creation’s goodness. Being infinitely sufficient in Himself, God had no need of a passage through sin and death to manifest His glory in His creatures or to join them perfectly to Himself. This is why it is misleading (however soothing it may be) to say that the drama of fall and redemption will make the final state of things more glorious than it might otherwise have been. No less metaphysically incoherent—though immeasurably more vile—is the suggestion that God requires suffering and death to reveal certain of his attributes (capricious cruelty, perhaps? morbid indifference? a twisted sense of humor?). It is precisely sin, suffering, and death that blind us to God’s true nature.”
Read DBH’s full article by clicking here.
Diversity is not our strength — unity is. And if you live in the west and have been told over and over again that diversity is our strength, to the point where you actually think unity when you hear diversity, you have been sufficiently brain washed.
Any ideology which seeks to divide a people is seeking to overthrow that people. Sometimes that’s a good thing — when the people are living in hell, the last thing that’s good for them is strength in unity.
So whether the changes in the west will lead to better things or worse things, don’t be fooled into believing the lie that diversity is our strength.
War is not peace, freedom is not slavery, ignorance is not strength, and neither is diversity.
How do you replace a dictatorship? You create a republic.
A republic is much like a democracy in that the people rule. The people vote for what they want, and the majority wins. But, unlike a democracy, a republic will institute a constitution which will protect the rights of individuals regardless of what the majority might say. So, for example, if a constitution states that individuals are free to practice a particular religion, then even if the majority of citizens want that religion gone, the followers of it are still protected and free to practice.
A society of free individuals doesn’t just happen all on its own. Even if 99% of the people are in agreement, and want to live free lives, you still need to create a system of government which will protect that free society.
Dictatorships are much more natural than republics. If you make no effort to set up a republican system of government, and only hope for the best, you can be sure that one of two things will happen: 1) The society will collapse and dissipate; 2) A dictatorship will form. Anarchy never works.
Related reading: Leaders of Movements
When two people get married, they speak their vows. Now, even though those two people will change over the following ten, twenty, thirty years, the vows will remain the same for the life of the marriage. If the husband says after twenty years, “Our marriage vows are outdated. I think we should rewrite them to fit our current situation more accurately,” what he’s really saying is, “I want our marriage as it has been for the last twenty years to end, and I want to create an entirely new marriage.”
It is the same with a nation’s constitution. The constitution, as written by the nation’s founders, is meant to remain unchanged for the lifespan of that nation. When you hear people saying that it’s time to update the constitution, what they’re really saying is that they want a revolution — they want a new nation.
The Age of Empires
There’s no Going Back
Revolutions & Counter-revolutions