Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2023 4:28 pm
God put child A in an apartment with a pedophile who already raped child A's older sisters. God put child B in an apartment with decent parents who had zero proclivities in that direction.
No, He did not. He allowed people to procreate, without sterilizing those who were evil. And it's a good thing He did, because compared to His standard, there aren't any who are righteous by their own doing (Romans 3: 10 --
"There is none righteous, not even one."), so there would be no human race if He had.
The people who decided what conditions they would set for the children were the parents. It is they who will answer to a holy God for what they did, too. We all have to own our moral freedom; we are all going to answer for it, as John Locke so wisely said.
It's amazing how people want to pretend that all the good they do is their own, but all the evil is God's fault.
Did I say anything at all that indicated I do that? Where did this come from?
Well, yes, I think you did. You sailed right past the actual perpetrators of the abuse, and blamed God instead, did you not?
And of course also with inborn disseases, natural disasters that cause incredible suffering and so on. Or did humans make the world?
That's a different conception of evil, of course, but your question is good.
Susan Neiman, in her book "Evil In Modern Thought," sagely observes that there are two things to which we attribute the term "evil": and she calls them "human evils" and "natural evils." In the case of the former, there's a human doer: such things are most obviously the responsibility of the perp. Any question about whether or not God should permit it, is usually responded to in terms of human freedom. The second evil, though, are evils in which there is no perp: earthquakes, hurricanes, cancer, and so on.
Now, it's true the distinction is not pure. For example, cancer can be caused by dietary choices. But I think the distinction is helpful. And I think she's smart not to group the two together merely under the heading "evil," because that fails to recognize the difference. But your first concern seems to be human evils, and then you shift into natural evils. Let's treat them as somewhat different problems, shall we?
Or should we? Let me try out a postulate on you: that human freedom would be just as impossible in a world devoid of natural evils as it would be in a world devoid of the possibility of human evils.
Ask more, if you care, or leave it there, if you decide you don't.
I am pointing out that there's a problem with your model that all the evil that happens comes from other humans:
I didn't say it did, did I? In fact, I'm recognizing the distinction you want, just as Neiman is.
Of course habits of all kinds - denying anger included - can be a problem.
That's just anger, and anger can be warranted. One should be angry when one sees evil, for example; but one should also act, if one can. Another thing about anger is that it's also usually temporary and focused. But rage, I would say, is not that: it's a more abiding state of mind.
Well not in its definition. But OK, so now I know you're talking about long standing angers. Or as I mentioned that there can be problems when we get habitual emotions/attitudes.
Well, rage is usually associated with adjectives like "simmering" or "impotent," both of which suggest a longer-term disposition toward the world, rather than merely a flash of temporary (and perhaps warranted) anger.
So, then anger can be OK. Anger can be justified.
Yes. God Himself is "angry" against evil...but one should probably prefer the term "wrathful," because "anger" suggests a temporary and emotional state, just as "rage" suggests a prolonged feeling of incapacity or impotence. Obviously, neither describes the settled disposition of and all-powerful God to deal with all evil with absolute thoroughness and justice: so the preferred term would be "wrath."
But suffice to say, God is not winking at evil. And He is not going to be passive in the presence of injustice. Everything has its time: human freedom has its time, and divine accountability has its time. The time for wrath is not yet. But those who have been abused, or have been victimized by some awful exercise of the moral freedom of others would be right to be aggrieved if God did not eventually judge and clear the tables.
It's a disposition toward the world, really: and that's what you see in Gary -- not focused anger for a moment, and with a positive action, but bitterness, venom, unhappiness, resentment, and world-hatred.
It's not working for him. But we so often find ourselves drawn to lazy evil, rather than to the hard work of making better choices and making our lives better. That's when rage comes in to power our inertia, our circling of the drain, our cycle of hatred and ingratitude. And there's no getting out of that by way of more rage.
Not ultimately, but it can be a part of a process.
If it is, then "rage" would be a futile stage we need to get past, not a healthy stage we need to cultivate.
I've done this. I've expressed rage until heartbreak came or grief or an underlying fear I didn't want to face and as horrible as the rage was, this fear was even scarier.
Well, that's the thing about rage: it's a sort of "substitute" for a better reaction, often because we DON'T want to face reality. And let's face it: it's easier to rage and grow resentful than to face the truth and have to admit that part of the misery one is facing could be one's own doing. That's painful. Rage makes that seem unnecessary, and so can be, in an odd way, comforting. But comfort is not what somebody needs when they are refusing to face reality, or to take responsibility for their own choices or role in a bad situation.
And one thing for sure: it's never productive. Again, one has to get past the rage, because the rage is actually infantile. Nobody does it more often, or more graphically, than two-year-olds.
But your reaction is that this person needs to stop raging and make somthing of themself.
Yes, they do. The rage, all by itself, will produce no good at all. Only if it is translated into an intelligent and purposeful response will any good come out of it.
And you're not this person's friend, you're not a professional, you don't see him in a face to face situation, but you are sure enough to tell him this in unqualified terms and when he doesn't listen, start to talk to others about how he likes being where he is.
I don't have to be. It doesn't require more information, or psychoanalysis, or involvement to know what common sense makes sensible. Common sense will tell anybody exactly the same thing: Gary's bitterness, hatred, resentment and nihilistic hatred of life is getting him nothing good.
I don't think this is your intention, but it doesn't seem compassionate to me.
It is. Gary's had plenty of pity, and enough sympathy even from me (as you say, you're not privy to our long-standing conversations, and I don't tell you to go back and read them all...it would take you a long time). But Gary needs a change. And maybe nobody's had the courage, or cared enough, to tell him he's gone savagely wrong, and is now eating himself. To tell him to stop is the only compassionate thing to do.
So let us both opt for the compassion that is not afraid to say what needs to be said, right?
So, gossiping in front of him to others about how he likes is pain.
Who's "gossipping"?
Gary WANTS to air this. Go back and check. You can't get him to STOP talking about it, and talking right here, in public. He's constantly going on about how sad his life is, and how much he hates God, and doing his darndest to provoke me with insults directed toward God. I don't take most of them, and I refuse to be offended, even when he blasphemes; but he fires out no shortage of such things. This guy wants to talk about it, and right here.
As for my advice, all that I have said I told him to his face. And it was after he issued the many evident provocations and inquiries to get me to do so. If the fact that he did so in public troubles you, then take it up with Gary; but nothing we're talking about here is being done in the dark.
Now, I've
tried him on the private message board; he doesn't respond, for some reason. That's up to him. But if he's going to be provocative and issue defiances against God, does he want me to remain quiet? You be the judge. Go back and check to see if what I'm saying is true.
You could be right, I haven't read the posts you are reacting to.
Well, perhaps you're only channelling your own first impression, then, which is fair enough. But there's more to this story than you know, then.
And you did not ONCE respond to the actual behaviors on your part I mentioned.
Well, to be frank, I found that the characterizations weren't apt. I had no reason to respond to them, since they were off base. There's no point in spending time running down a side trail that's not even factually right.
Again, you could go back and see where Gary's been on this, and what we've talked about already -- which is all a result of stuff Gary himself has volunteered, nothing I've induced him say. Gary likes get as much pity as he can here, which is why he exposes all his personal stuff to everybody. But it's a toxic bit of behaviour, and I think his future happiness depends on him finding a much more productive strategy for dealing with his personal rage. Venting it here is not doing him any good. That much must be quite clear to you.
So I think a compassionate response is to tell Gary, "Make some changes." If you've got what you think is better advice for him, go ahead. If you don't, then you've got nothing to offer him, I suppose. However, to cut him off from the sort of exhortation that actually stands to make his life better, well, that's certainly somewhat less than what most people would understand as "compassion."
