Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: Felix Culpa

How come we don't have a topic for religion on slashdot? Oh well, this is a sufficiently advanced topic to be considered "enlightenment"- the theological version of technology significantly advanced enough to be magic to those who don't understand it.

Felix Culpa - the fortunate evil- is the hardest concept in Judaeo-Christianity to wrap your mind around. The lack of preaching surrounding this concept in fundamentalism has created more atheists than anything else in the United States.

I've recently seen one avid agnostic/atheist claim that the existence of the Holocaust in WWII was final proof that there was no God. I'd personally say that isn't necessarily so- it could mean a lack of an interventionist God, or it could actually mean that the death of 6 million human beings was necessary politically to recreate the historic Nation of Israel and give them their land back for the first time since the Roman Purge.

Either way, though, it means accepting that which any reasonable human being would define as evil as A Part of God's Plan which is incredibly hard for somebody like me to handle. I can see why the problem of evil creates atheists.

This also impacts my belief in free will. Oh, I believe it exists, at least, for any limited finite species that only experiences time flowing in a single vector; our lack of knowledge of the future grants us a freedom only exceeded by science fiction characters trapped in a time loop. No, my problem is with the freedom part specifically- the freedom to commit evil. The idea that even a man committing evil, may, inadvertantly, be doing the will of God just doesn't feel right to me. Felix Culpa can only be judged with 20/20 hindsight; with logical foresight it's just another excuse to sin, a rationalization of the evil that lives in every human being.

That's also why I end up a bit on the statist/tribalist side of things too- I don't want the freedom to commit evil for myself or my children, I want somebody to give me nice thick black lines instead of thin blue ones between civilization and chaos, and I want to do everything humanly possible to firewall off civilization from chaos.

Felix Culpa means accepting that for good things to happen, bad must also happen- and I'm not sure I'm willing to accept that.

The assumption

[Philip K Dickhead]

...that our perceived material well-being and comfort are the highest form of blessing and spiritual reward is the root of this.

That our innocent lives and comfort may be blasted apart, to the benefit of a non-material and blessed state? This is irreconcilable with the implicit materialism of the modern world - even among those who consider themselves believers. We assume ourselves to know all of existence, and equal in our perspective to God. Unconsciously, even believers subject God to their judgment:

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You're right- that is the assumption (even if I'd place it somewhere lower; if I have to be deprived of television so that another man can eat, so be it- but that's still material well-being of the other man).

Personal Attention by God

[chill]

To deal with this concept easier, you have to let go of the idea of personal attention by God. This is a major emphasis of many evangelical Christian sects -- that God has a plan for YOU, personally, and he keeps himself up at night worrying about you, etc. It is an extension of the ancient, egotistical notion that the Earth is the center of the universe. Man, or you specifically, are the center of God's attention. You're special.

Once you toss your ego out the door, you can look at it this way.

God has a

Re:

[Bill Dog]

If you could go back in time and kill Adolph Hitler as a baby, would it actually pre-empt WW2? My argument is no, the time and circumstances for the war were there regardless of Hitler himself.

An absurd argument -- the reason for killing the baby Hitler would not be to prevent the war, but to prevent the Holocaust. But I have more to say on this "good evil" notion for a general response to the JE.

On "God's plan", while evangelical Christians believe it is spiritual growth (learning about God and Heaven and

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

" Do you have a name for that?"

Progressiveness.

As in, being pro-progress, regardless of individual evil. I know several Catholic orthodox believers (not just under the Pope, but Eastern Orthodox as well) who are against it. It will be interesting the next time I'm in an argument with one of them to bring up Felix Culpa, and maybe the idea that ObamaCare is a part of God's plan.

Re:

[chill]

An absurd argument -- the reason for killing the baby Hitler would not be to prevent the war, but to prevent the Holocaust.

But what if the Holocaust was necessary to ensure the total defeat of Hitler, and eradicate that particular form of "wrongness" for as long as possible. Keep in mind, Stalin was about the same time. What if the war happened, but the Holocaust didn't and because of that, Germany was able to devote more resources to the actual effort and win? What if Hitler's replacement didn't go insane at the end and honored his agreement with Russia and conquered all of Europe except Britain, Ireland and Iceland?

I hate

Re:

[Bill Dog]

I hate to say it, but what if the Holocaust was the best of all probable outcomes?

What if experimenting on people saves more lives in the long run? One can "what-if" morality right out the window, if one lacks the wisdom to do so. See also: "For the Greater Good"(TM).

Re:

[chill]

Yes, you're right. Given the option, and time machine, I'd whack Hitler myself. I refuse to accept the idea that something like the Holocaust was the best possible outcome.

But the perspective is different if you're an all-powerful immortal with a grand plan. In chess the pawns are sacrificed to win the game. Funny how the chessmaster never considers the pawn's feelings on the matter.

Re:

[Bill Dog]

The perspective it not that much different, if you're an all-powerful immortal with a grand plan who's made man in His image, supposedly places us above even the angels, and came here as one of us and let us kill him to give us a way out. And our bodies are His temple, all human life is sacred, etc. It's that evangelical Christian "it's all about us" ego again. ;)

Maybe it's not that God and Satan are playing chess and we are mere pawns, but instead it is us and Satan battling it out, and God just keeps it f

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Maybe it's not that God and Satan are playing chess and we are mere pawns, but instead it is us and Satan battling it out, and God just keeps it from being a slaughter (of our side) too quickly. Not as appealing, granted, if say one romanticizes certain notions of symmetry in the universe.
 
And also, I'd point out- since God created Satan and you said that only Evil creates Evil, that makes God Evil.

Re:

[Bill Dog]

since God created Satan

Really? (Biblical) citation please. (Not saying you're wrong, just that I don't recall ever learning that God created the angels.)

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Really? (Biblical) citation please. (Not saying you're wrong, just that I don't recall ever learning that God created the angels.)

This is going to be a bit of research that blows my mind, isn't it?

My definition of God is the being or process that created the *entire* universe. If angels aren't a part of that creation, then that means there is something outside of it. I just scanned the first 6 chapters of Genesis, the first mention of what we later named angels is the "sons of God" from t

Re:

[Bill Dog]

This is something that I kinda oppose even at my own church -- they have classes on things and once in a while they'll have one on angels. Now *this* is where I think Christians can have some culpability in leading would-be atheists astray -- looking at the Bible, even sometimes, as other than what it was meant for. The Bible does not fully explain the angels, or the Creation, or the logistics of Noah's ark, etc. All these secondary things are only meant for us to know that they happened, but (that we need

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I'm not sola scriptura- so I've read some of the commentary to the Bible from Jewish and Catholic and even heretical sources over the years.

Jewish mythology, from which the book of Genesis was taken, does indeed include (in addition to several more books written by the Sons of Noah, a fuller version of Adam and Eve & Lilith and the Cain and Abel story, and a bunch of other stuff) the Creation of the Orders of Angels- in a certain order.

But it's extrabiblical. As you say, the Bible, as edited by the Syn

Re:

[loucura!]

What if the war happened, but the Holocaust didn't and because of that, Germany was able to devote more resources to the actual effort and win? What if Hitler's replacement didn't go insane at the end and honored his agreement with Russia and conquered all of Europe except Britain, Ireland and Iceland?

Without the Holocaust, what egregious horror would a German-conquered Europe have?

moof

[Bill Dog]

You're going to make me into a Catholicism detractor yet. As much as I don't want to be. In general, this is really sick shit.

First, on the linked wikipedia article. The supposed example presented from the Hebrew tradition is, as TFA admits, not a fall. So it's not an example -- it's not applicable. The good came from the punishment, not the fall. It's ridiculous and sacrilege to declare good in sinning (disobeying God).

Which takes me to the Catholic example. That we disobeyed God and were ejected from para

Re:

[chill]

Did he try to fix the whole society, or did he just help some people?

Yes. He tried to fix the whole society by setting the example of just helping some people.

Jesus is not the God of the Old Testament. He wasn't raining down fire and brimstone, laying waste to cities or magically enforcing his will changing how man behaves.

As I'm sure you can see, this is the entire argument of "free will" in a nutshell. Yes, God COULD *make* us behave, but he chooses not to so we can exercise our agency and choose our own path. Etc.

And if you think God actually wanted us to sin and get ejected (entrapment, and setting us up to fail), to teach us some lesson, then why do you even worship Him at all?

It depends on what God wanted out of man. If he was lo

Re:

[Bill Dog]

An interesting way of looking at it that you brought up -- thank you: I believe that God was looking for a pet. Thinking back to my deceased pooch, I expected her to emulate me and my ways to some degree, but she was a dog and I'm a human being and she could never be just like me, so I didn't expect any "evolving" beyond some modicum of obediance and civilized manners. I got her, vs. say a pet rock, because I wanted a being that could choose to love me or not, and follow me or not. And choosing me (vs. the

Re:

[chill]

I do see it more as a Parent-Child relationship. The main difference with you and the dog vs God and man is that you *CHOSE* a pet. God *MADE* man, so who's to say he didn't imbue us with the potential to eventually evolve to his level? One day, many (many, at our rate) ages from now we may eventually go from "Welcome, my son..." to "Welcome, my brother..."

If God is the one and only, he must be seriously lonely and pets can console you only so much.

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I guess you see the God-man relationship as more like raising a kid.
 
I *want* to see the God-man relationship as more like raising a kid; but I also just want to be a pet without the responsibility of becoming a creator.

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I said it was a hard concept. In fact, I said it's a concept I struggle with myself.

Certainly "God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom" sometimes, but God is just as capable of bringing good in the absence of anything despicable as a catalyst. This sounds like some pagan "good and evil are two sides of the same coin and you can't have one without the other and/or each is necessary for the other" influence on Catholicism.

Well, then instead of looking a

Re:

[Bill Dog]

If God is Good, and is interventionist,...

Of those assumptions (and the implications behind them), I'm only willing to grant the first one. So the argument based on the two combined is invalid, to me. So to me the atheist is illogical either for trying to deduce something from an unestablished/unagreed-upon assumuption, or from confusing this unestablished/unagreed-upon assumuption as being otherwise. Either way it's an intellectual mistake on the part of the atheist, so their being wrong is their fault. (A

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Of those assumptions (and the implications behind them), I'm only willing to grant the first one. So the argument based on the two combined is invalid, to me. So to me the atheist is illogical either for trying to deduce something from an unestablished/unagreed-upon assumuption, or from confusing this unestablished/unagreed-upon assumuption as being otherwise. Either way it's an intellectual mistake on the part of the atheist, so their being wrong is their fault. (And atheists particularly pride themselves

Re:

[Bill Dog]

Oh, so you're a Diest-...

No black-or-white-only thinking, please. To not necessarily accept the loaded phrase "interventionist god" is not to reject the idea of any and all divine intervention. God is good, but obviously not interventionist to the point that He stops every evil from happening. I'll defer to His wisdom on that. If you're worried about that leading people to atheism, what about one of the other huge "problems" of our faith, that He doesn't just reveal Himself outright for all to see, but inst

Heh

[Captain Splendid]

I've recently seen one avid agnostic/atheist claim that the existence of the Holocaust in WWII was final proof that there was no God.

No, it just means he's a sick fuck.